P.S. Muddappa, P.D. Ponnanna and S.D. Prasad vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offence punishable u/s 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 162/2013.

The brief facts of the prosecution case that on the basis of the statement furnished by one Mr. P. Muthappa stating that all the petitioners herein opened fire against him and he sustained injuries on account of the gun fire on 07-12-2013. The respondent-police registered a case against all the petitioners herein u/s 307 of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 3 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, the order passed by the lower Court and also other materials placed on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument submitted that even medical report issued from National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences dated 08-12-2013 goes to show that the injured has not at all sustained any injuries and it is said to have been because of the fire on him. Looking to the medical report issued by the said hospital, it is mentioned after getting X-ray of the skull, pellet is not seen. Even it is also not the case of the prosecution that till today petitioner is in the hospital as indoor patient and getting the treatment and his life is in danger. The offences alleged are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The apprehension of the prosecution that if bail is granted, petitioners may abscond and they may tamper the prosecution witnesses. For this apprehension, conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that these petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable u/s 307 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 162/2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;

(ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for;

(iv) The petitioners shall appear before the respondent-police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of the investigation; and

(v) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.