High CourtsSingle Bench

Punith Nayak vs State Of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 8 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 KAR CK 0028

HON’BLE JUDGES
H.P. Sandesh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34. 307, 323, 504, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 99 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

30 paragraphs · 563 words

H.P. Sandesh, J

1.

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused in Crime No.470/2021 of Madanayakanahally

Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 307, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that, this petitioner along with other accused persons on 04.10.2021, all of them joined together

and accused No.1 inflicted injury with a knife on the abdomen of the victim and also abused in a filthy language, caused a life threat and the injured

had sustained the grievous injuries. The police have registered a case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner is in custody from 10.10.2021 and also the injured was discharged

from the hospital on 12.10.2021. The learned counsel also would submit that the other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. This

petitioner is an accused No.2. The learned counsel also would submit that the main overt act allegation against accused No.1 is that he inflicted the

injury with knife.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State would submit that this petitioner always used to

consume alcohol and used to make quarrel. On the date of the incident also, he was influenced with alcohol and at the instance of this petitioner,

accused No.1 inflicted injury. Hence, there is a prima facie case as against this petitioner and the statement of eyewitnesses also recorded.

6.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the State and on perusal of the material available on record, this petitioner is in the custody from 10.10.2021 and an allegation against

accused No.1 is that he inflicted injury with a knife. No doubt, the injury sustained by the victim is grievous in nature and he was discharged from the

hospital within three days. The injured is out of danger and when there is no specific overt act allegation against this petitioner and the investigation

has already been completed and filed the charge-sheet. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 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 petitioner/accused No.4 shall be released on bail in Crime No.470/2021 of Madanayakanahally Police

Station, Bengaluru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 307, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute 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 jurisdictional Court.

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

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

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed

of.