The court considered the nature of injuries sustained by the police officials and the need to protect the interest of the prosecution in granting bail to the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of Crime No.58/2022 registered by Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Ss. 353, 332 and 307 read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that these two petitioners are accused in Crime No.45/2022 and on credible information received by the Inspector, who is the complainant that they are roaming; made an attempt to apprehend them, at that time, these two petitioners inflicted injury with a knife on one of the PSI. Hence, shot both of them and apprehended them. These two petitioners in order to prevent them from discharging the public duty, inflicted injury. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Ss. 353, 332 and 307 read with 34 of IPC.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that these petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and the alleged history that these two petitioners are inflicted injury with a knife, is only a created story, when they have shot both of them with an intention to escape from the allegations, a false case has been registered and the injuries are simple in nature. Hence, they may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that though the injuries are simple in nature, these two petitioners indulged in committing an offence against the Police officials, who are on public duty and also inflicted injury with a knife. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State also would submit that these two petitioners are the habitual offenders and the Investigating Officer has given the report that there were nine cases against them. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioners herein.

6. In reply to the submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that against one petitioner, there were six cases and another petitioner only three cases and the petitioners are enlarged on bail in three cases on crime stage.

7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, taking into note of an allegation made against these petitioners and also the accusations that they inflicted injury with a knife, apart from that, the Investigating Officer shot both of them and both of them have also sustained the injuries. The injuries sustained by the officials are also simple in nature. No doubt, there is an offence against the Society at large making an attempt against the police officials, who are in discharge of their public duty. However, taking into note of the nature of injuries sustained by the Police Officials and considering the said fact into consideration, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 shall be released on bail in Crime No.58/2022 registered by Sampigehalli Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Ss. 353, 332 and 307 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties each for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine ca