IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Shashikumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6230/2022
Decided On : 21-07-2022
Section 438 - Bail - The court allowed petitioner No. 2 to be released on bail in connection with the registered offences, subject to certain conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The petition was filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying the court to enlarge petitioner No. 2 on bail in the event of his arrest for certain offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a prior ill-will between the parties, and the injuries were simple in nature. It was deemed a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with certain conditions.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the offences, the specific allegations against petitioner No. 2, and the prima facie case against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the specific allegations made against petitioner No. 1, the nature of the injuries, and the absence of specific overt-act allegations against petitioner No. 2 in the complaint.
Final Decision: The petition in respect of petitioner No. 2 was allowed, and he was ordered to be released on bail subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo stating that petitioner No. 1 has been arrested and thereafter enlarged on bail. Hence, he is not pressing the petition in respect of petitioner No. 1.
2. In view of the submission, the petition as against petitioner No. 1 is dismissed as having become infructuous.
3. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge petitioner No. 2 on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crl.Misc.No. 641/2022 (Crime No. 82/2022) registered by Harihara Police Station, Davanagere District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
4. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner No. 2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
5. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by the victim that petitioner No. 2 and other accused both came and abused the victim and her husband in a filthy language due to previous ill-will and dragged her husband and assaulted on his face, cheek, right hand and left portion of the chest by taking the club, which was there at the shop and when she went and questioned the same, both of them abused her in a filthy language and outraged the modesty of a woman. Based on the complaint, the police have invoked the offences under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner No. 2 would submit that the very complaint discloses that there was a prior ill-will between them. The learned counsel submits that accused No. 1, who inflicted injury has already been enlarged on bail and the offence invoked against accused No. 1 is Section 354B of IPC and not against this petitioner and the injuries are simple in nature and hence he may be enlarged on bail.
7. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that petitioner No. 2 and other accused both of them inflicted injury with club on the husband of the complainant and hence, there is a prima facie case against petitioner No. 2.
8. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, subsequent to the filing of the petition, petitioner No. 1 was arrested and enlarged on bail and having taken note of the specific allegation is made against petitioner No. 1 and an omnibus allegation is made that assaulted with club and no specific overt-act allegation is made against petitioner No. 2 in the complaint. When such being the case and when the injuries are simple in nature, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with a condition to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition in respect of petitioner No. 2 is allowed. Consequently, petitioner No. 2 shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crl.Misc.No. 641/2022 (Crime No. 82/2022) registered by Harihara Police Station, Davanagere District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354B, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner No. 2 shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner No. 2 shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner No. 2 shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
(iv) The petitioner No. 2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed
The main legal point established is that bail can be granted under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. based on the nature of the offences and specific allegations against the petitioner.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioners for bail based on the distinction between the allegations against accused No. 1 for sexual a....
The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the offence and the fact that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the circumstances of the case and may impose specific conditions for the release of the accused.
The severity of the offense and the prima facie material available on record disentitled the petitioner from obtaining bail.
Bail is permissible even if preventive detention is in force if facts merit grant of relief.
A lesser degree of involvement in a serious crime may justify bail, especially when a co-accused has been granted bail under similar circumstances.
Bail can be granted when the injuries are trivial and custodial interrogation is not necessary.
The court granted bail under stringent conditions, citing lack of serious injury to the complainant.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.