IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9419/2018 BETWEEN:
SRI PANCHAIAH N. D., S/O LATE DYAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEELASANDRA VILLAGE, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TAUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572123.
(BY SRI D. A. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIYURDURGA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BANGALORE-560 001.
(BY SRI H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SPP-I A/W SRI S.T. NAIK, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT * * * THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.38/2016 (C.C.NO.34/2017) OF HULIYURDURGA POLICE STATION, TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 307, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.8 under Section 439 Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail in Crime No. 38/2016 of Huliyurdurga Police Station, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor along with learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 13.2.2016 the complainant had parked his car in front of the house of his sister – Rathnamma at about 7.00 p.m. and at that time, a tractor came there and the driver of the said tractor called the complainant to remove the car in order to make way to the said tractor. Accordingly, the complainant’s son removed the car from that place. Thereafter, the driver of the tractor did not allow the complainant to park the car again in that place in spite of request made by his son. Thereafter, after some time the driver of the tractor along with other persons assaulted the complainant with a chopper on the left side of the head of the complainant and caused grievous injuries. Hence, a complaint was registered against the accused persons.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused No.8 has not actively participated in the alleged crime. The only allegation is that the accused had kicked the injured with his leg and the injuries suffered by the complainant are also simple in nature. The injured has already been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that other accused persons have already been released on bail. Hence, even on the ground of parity, the accused is entitled to be enlarged on bail and the accused is ready to abide all the conditions imposed, if he is released on bail. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, Sri H.S. Chandramouli, learned State Public Prosecutor along with Sri S.T. Naik, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that as many as five cases have been registered against the accused-petitioner and he was absconding since the year 2016. As such, he was not available for the purpose of investigation and interrogation. He further submitted that the conduct of the accused, if looked into, would show that the accused was avoiding service of summons and was not available for trail. Therefore, if the accused is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor as well as perused the other materials placed on record.
7. As could be seen from the contents and other materials, it indicates that the injured had sustained four injuries and he has been discharged from the hospital. Even as could be seen from the records, this Court in the similar facts and circumstances of the case in Criminal Petition No.2869/2016 filed by other accused, by the order dated 1.6.2016 has released accused No.4 and other accused on bail. As such, on the ground of parity, the accused-petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. No doubt the learned SPP submitted that many cases have been registered against the accused-petitioner and his conduct is also not fair. Under the said facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that by imposing stringent conditions if the accused-petitioner is enlarged on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, petition is allowed.
9. Petitioner/accused No.8 is enlarged on bail in Crime No.38/2016 of Huliyurdurga Police Station, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
i) Petitioner/accused No.8 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
iii) He shall not indulge in any similar type of criminal activities.
iv) He shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days to the jurisdictional Police till he is acquitted of the aforesaid offences.
v) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE Nsu/-