Channu vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The case of the complainant one Pradeep, that the complainant had taken a public toilet on rental basis and was operating the same. It transpires that about three days prior to the date of the alleged incident one Bombay Sanju had come to the public toilet and had used the same without paying for it and therefore there was a quarrel between the complainant and the said Bombay Sanju. Three days later Bombay Sanju is said to have come along with several persons including the petitioner and had dragged the complainant out of the public toilet and had assaulted him. Bombay Sanju assaulted him a hockey stick whereas others had assaulted with weapons. It is alleged that the petitioner had punched the complainant in his face and therefore he had sustained bleeding injuries. It was also alleged that the accused exhorted one another to kill the complainant. It is by the intervention of the friends of the complainant that any further mishap was thwarted. The complainant thereafter had obtained treatment in the Government general hospital and lodged a complaint against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable u/s 307, apart from other provisions of Indian Penal Code.

The petitioner having been remanded to judicial custody had approached the court of Sessions Judge at Gulbarga seeking enlargement on bail which has been denied on the ground that the punishment for an offence punishable u/s 307 would include life imprisonment and there being prima-facie evidence against the petitioner, the petitioner had not made out a case for enlargement on bail. Further it is noticed that other accused namely Bombay Sanju and others have not been apprehended. It was on account of a quarrel between the complainant and Bombay Sanju that the incident is said to have taken place. Further the injuries suffered by the petitioner are of a simple nature and he was treated as an out-patient in hospital. Having regard to the manner in which petitioner was alleged to be involved in the incident, there is no serious case made out against the petitioner and therefore he is entitled to bail. Accordingly, the petition stands allowed, subject to the following conditions:

The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a self-bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with a solvent surety for a likesum, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below, without the leave of the court.

He shall not in any manner, seek to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

The petitioner shall offer all co-operation with the investigating agency and grant of bail in favour of the present petitioner shall not be treated as a precedent only others claiming parity with observation.

The petitioner shall attend the court below on all dates of hearing in the proceedings that would ensue.