Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.Natarajan, J.
Thimmappa - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6680/2022
Decided On : 01-08-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Assault and Outraging Modesty - The court granted anticipatory bail to the accused persons, subject to certain conditions, in a case involving allegations of assault and outraging modesty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case where they were accused of assaulting the complainant and attempting to outrage the modesty of the complainant's daughter. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, who are relatives of the complainant's aunt, were involved in a quarrel that led to the assault and outraging of modesty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had been discharged from the hospital and was out of danger. It noted that the alleged offences were bailable except for one section of the Indian Penal Code. The court also observed that the presence of the petitioners was not required for further investigation, and the determination of their guilt would be a matter for trial. Therefore, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, imposing specific conditions.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the alleged assault and outraging of modesty by the accused persons, the credibility of the complaint, and the necessity of the petitioners' presence for further investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the complainant had been discharged from the hospital, the bailable nature of the alleged offences, and the lack of necessity for the petitioners' immediate presence in the investigation. The court also emphasized that the determination of guilt would be a matter for trial.
Final Decision: The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, directing the police to release them on bail in the event of their arrest, subject to specific conditions outlined in the order.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.146/2022 registered by Saligrama Police Station, K.R.Nagar, Mysuru city, for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 148, 448, 307, 354, 323 read with 149 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/injured- Nithin C who gave the statement before the police in Shubhodaya hospital, Mysuru alleging that on 23/6/2022 at about 8.00 p.m., his aunt called him and informed that her brother-in-law that is petitioner No.3 herein and his relatives were quarreling with her and also with her daughter hence, the complainant went to his aunt house at 9.15 p.m., on the said day and on enquiry, petitioner No.3 along with other accused persons picked up quarrel with the complainant on the guise that he has came for the purpose of making galata with them and hence, petitioner No.2 assaulted the complainant with the backside of the machete on his right hand, head, right leg and left arm also on the front side of the head, as a result, the complainant sustained bleeding injuries and when his aunt came to rescue the complainant, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 assaulted on her with their hands and all accused persons tried to outrage the modesty of the daughter of his aunt and when the villagers came to the spot, all the accused persons ran away from the place and one Dileep took the complainant to the hospital for treatment. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the petitioners have approached the Trial Court and the Trial Court rejected their bail application hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are falsely implicated in the case and the entire allegations made in the complaint are too vague and the complainant is already discharged from the hospital and he is out of danger and the alleged offences neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life and there are lot of contradictions to the complaint and to the statement of witnesses and the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and hence, prayed for grant of bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State seriously objected the bail petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, it reveal that the complainant went to the house of his aunt to enquire about galata and on enquiry, petitioner No.3 who is none other than the brother-in-law of his aunt said to be assaulted on the complainant and discharge summery of the complainant reveals that the complainant has discharged on 26/6/2022 and he is out of danger and the offences alleged against the petitioners are bailable offences except Sec. 307 of IPC and the petitioners are the relatives of his aunt and the presence of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of further investigation except for recovery of the articles which were used in the alleged incident and whether the petitioners have committed the alleged offences or not is a matter of trial. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, if the petitioners are granted bail by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed. The respondent - Police are directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.146/2022 registered by Saligrama Police Station, K.R.Nagar, Mysuru city, for the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 148, 448, 307, 354, 323 read with 149 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall exec
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant anticipatory bail in cases involving bailable offences, considering factors such as the complainant's condition, ne....
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 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 that the grant of anticipatory bail is subject to stringent conditions, especially when the accused is not directly implicated in the alleged offen....
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.
Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of criminal antecedents and nature of allegations, emphasizing conditions to prevent interference with investigation.
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
