IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.817/2019 BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BANNURU POLICE STATION MYSURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 1 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) AND:
1. SHASHIDHARA H @ SHASHI S/O. HOMBALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT BOLEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571124 2. HOMBALEGOWDA S/O. KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT BOLEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571124 3. MAHADEVA S/O. KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT BOLEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571124 4. RAJU S/O. KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT BOLEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571124 5. KUMARA S/O. KULLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT BOLEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571124 6. SRIDHARA @ DHARA S/O. HOMBALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS RESIDING AT BOLEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571124 7. RAMU S/O. LATE SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT BOLEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE SOSALE HOBLI, T.NARASIPURA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571124 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CANCEL THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2018 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1763/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU THEREBY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS U/S 438 OF CR.P.C.
AND RELEASING THEM ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CR.NO.342/2018 OF BANNUR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 323, 342, 448, 504, 506, 306, 114 R/W 149 OF IPC AND DIRECT THAT THE RESPONDENTS BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned SPP and the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7.
2. Perused the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons (respondents herein) in Cr.No.342/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 342, 448, 504, 506, 306 and 114 r/w 149 of IPC.
3. Considering the fact that on 27.09.2018, the accused had gathered near the house of the victim – Basavaraju and when the said person was inside the house, the accused persons had threatened the victim with dire consequences and also threatened the victim that if he comes out of the house, they do away with the life of the victim. Due to the threat posed by the accused persons, the victim- Basavaraju on the fear that they would kill him, if he goes out of the house, had committed suicide inside the house. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, whether the accused persons have really instigated the victim to commit suicide inside the house or not has to be thrashed out during the course of full fledged trial.
4. Considering the fact that the trial Court granted bail by imposing stringent conditions on the accused/respondents and as there is no allegations against the accused by the State that they have violated any of the terms and conditions of the bail and there is no complicity in the said fact, I am of the opinion that the discretionary power exercised by the trial Court while granting bail to the accused cannot be interfered unless there is strong and justifiable ground made out by the State and as there is no allegations against the accused/respondents, if they released on bail, in my opinion the said bail shall not be cancelled. Hence, petition is devoid merits and liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ