Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Peerjan And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|27 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7361/2018 BETWEEN :
1. Sri Peerjan S/o Abdul Sab Aged about 80 years 2. Eliyaaz Ahammed S/o Peerjan Aged about 37 years 3. Shaik Ahammed S/o Peerjan Aged about 54 years 4. Inthiyaaz S/o Peerjan Aged about 44 years 5. Nayaz S/o Peerjan Aged about 42 years All are resident of Shivanasamudra Darga Village Sathegala Post, Kollegala Taluk Chamarajanagara-571 440 … Petitioners (By Sri Ravinson M., Advocate) AND :
The State of Karnataka by Kollegala Rural Police Station Kollegala Taluk, Chamarajanagara District, Represented by its State public Prosecutor High Court Complex Bengaluru-560 001.
… Respondent (By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.236/2018 of Kollegala Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagara District, for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 323, 324, 354(b), 504,506 r/w. Section 149 of Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.236/2018 of Kollegala Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 14.8.2018 at about 12.30 p.m. when the complainant was in her residence, accused persons came to her house and forced her to vacate immediately. When the complainant showed a copy of the stay order against eviction issued by the Civil Court, the accused persons condemned the Court order and at that time, petitioner accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 have thrown the movables on the street and when the complainant resisted, accused Nos.1 and 3 to 6 assaulted her with iron rod and at that time, accused No.2 insisted the other accused persons to assault the complainant and thereby they caused the grievous injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such incident has taken place as alleged. In order to avoid the eviction, the present false complaint has been registered. He further submitted that the offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Because of the civil dispute pending between the accused and the complainant, a false case has been registered. He further submitted that the injuries suffered by the complainant and another injured witnesses are simple in nature and already they have been discharged from the hospital and they are out of danger. The petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, the leaned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that in spite of the Court order, the petitioners have tried to vacate the complainant, abused her in filthy language and also tried to assault and outrage her modesty. She further submitted that accused persons are highly influential persons and if they are enlarged on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may again threaten the complainant and they may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the parties and also perused the records.
7. On close reading of the complaint it shows that there are civil disputes pending between the accused and the complainant in respect of the eviction and when the complainant was there in the house, accused persons have illegally thrown her movables on the street and has assaulted her and CWs.1 and 2 and caused the injuries. As could be seen from the injury certificate issued by the General Hospital, Chamarajanagar, the injuries suffered by the injured are simple in nature and they have already been discharged from the hospital. The alleged offences are triable by the Court of Magistrate and not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Under such circumstances, by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused Nos.1 to 5-petitioners herein are enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.236/2018 of Kollegala Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 r/w. Section 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) They shall surrender before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from today.
iii) They shall not indulge in similar type of criminal activities.
iv) They shall not threaten the complainant and her family members. In the event the petitioners threaten the complainant and her family members, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
v) They shall mark their attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the jurisdictional police, till the charge sheet is filed.
vi) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Peerjan And Others vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
27 February, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil