Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V. Srishananda, J.
Nagesh V.N. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 10012 of 2021
Decided On : 22-03-2022
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - Criminal Law - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - IPC 1860, Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 354, 506, 504, 149 - The court considered the petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No. 117/2021. The accused were charged with various offenses under IPC Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 354, 506, 504, and 149. The court analyzed the gravity of the offense, the injuries sustained by the complainant, and the necessity of custodial investigation before allowing the petition in part and rejecting it for certain petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint filed by Narayanaswamy alleging assault by the accused on him and his family members following a series of altercations between the two families. The accused were charged with various offenses under IPC Sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 354, 506, 504, and 149.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the gravity of the offense was high, as evidenced by the injuries sustained by the complainant and the use of a club as a weapon. It also emphasized the necessity of custodial investigation and declined the petition for certain petitioners while allowing it for one petitioner, imposing specific conditions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to anticipatory bail considering the gravity of the offense and the injuries sustained by the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the offense, the injuries sustained by the complainant, and the necessity of custodial investigation, leading to the rejection of the petition for certain petitioners and the allowance of it for one petitioner with specific conditions.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed in part, rejecting it for certain petitioners and allowing it for one petitioner with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
V. Srishananda, J. - Heard Sri. P.M. Siddamallappa, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory bail with the following prayer:
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent police to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest by granting anticipatory bail in connection with the Crime No. 117/2021 in Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court, Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District of the Respondent- Tirumalashettyhalli Police Offence Punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 324, 326, 354, 506, 504 read with Section 149 of IPC by allowing this Bail Petition, to meet the ends of justice and equity."
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
A complaint came to be filed by Narayanaswamy son of Mantalappa on 16.11.2021 contending that his house and house of Narayanappa is situated opposite to each other and there was few minor altercations between the two families from the beginning and there was an ill-will nurtured by the accused persons. On 14.11.2021 at about 2.15 pm., when son of the complainant Sri. Harisha was proceeding on a motor cycle carrying grass for goats, at that juncture, the tarpal which was used for covering the fire wood was stretched by the motor cycle and therefore, again there was a quarrel. The quarrel ended in Sri. Devaraj assaulting with a club on the head of the complainant and also on the left hand. Sri. Nagesh assaulted with a club on Sri. Harisha and Sri. Krishnamma assaulted wife of the complainant, Sri. Manjunatha, Sri. Narayanappa, Sri. Manoj and Sri. Pavan assaulted with the hands on the complainant and his son. They also gave the life threat and the elders of the village pacified the quarrel.
4. Based on the said complaint, Thirumalashettahalli police registered a case in Crime No. 117/2021 on 16.11.2021 for the following offences:
"Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 326, 354, 504, 506 of IPC, 1860."
5. The police are investigating the matter and petitioners are not available to the Investigating Agency.
6. The attempt made by the petitioners seeking grant of anticipatory bail was turned down by the learned District Judge dated 29.11.2021 in Crl. Misc. No. 1863/2021. Thereafter, the petitioners are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are the law abiding citizens and in fact there was a counter complaint filed by Smt. Krishnamma, which was registered by the very same Police in Crime. No. 118/2021 dated 16.11.2021 and police in active collusion that Smt. Krishnamma, had registered a case only for the minor offences and invoked Section 326 of IPC, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned and therefore, sought for bail.
8. He has further contended that the material on record does not dis-entitle the petitioners for an order of grant of anticipatory bail. More so, when the petitioners have been granted bail by the jurisdictional Magistrate.
9. He has further contended that the petitioners are ready to abide by any of the conditions including to join the investigation and sought for grant of bail.
10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition on the ground that the complainant has sustained grievous injuries.
11. Perused the material on record, in view of the rival contentions of the parties.
12. The incident had occurred on 14.11.2021 at about 2.15 pm., A minor incident has been blown out of proportion and there was an assault made by the petitioners herein. Wound certificate prima facie reveal that there was a grievous injuries sustained by the complainant. The weapon used was the club.
13. Suffice to say that the material on record would show the gravity of the offence is on the higher side. This Co
The gravity of the offense, injuries sustained by the complainant, and the necessity of custodial investigation are crucial factors in determining the entitlement to anticipatory bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing the importance of the petitioner's cooperation with the Investigating Agency and ....
The absence of ingredients of a specific criminal offence and the need to balance apprehensions raised by the prosecution with the right of the accused to seek anticipatory bail.
The main legal point established is the balancing of the need for custodial investigation with the rights of the petitioner in the grant of anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail granted in non-serious offence based on discharge from hospital and no criminal antecedents.
Anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners who demonstrate willingness to comply with court-imposed conditions.
The absence of prior offenses against petitioners and co-accused's bail status justified anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
The court emphasizes the criteria for anticipatory bail considering existing disputes and factors like injury and past convictions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
