Rama Shetty vs State of Karnataka

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release

him on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 504 of IPC, registered in respondent -

police station Crime No.54/2017.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that, there is a delay of three days in lodging the complaint, which is not

properly explained. It is also his submission that, there are case and counter case and also on the complaint filed by the brother-in-law of the

present petitioner, a case against the complainant came to be registered in Crime No.55/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323,

504 and 506(2) of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the FIR and complaint in the said crime number. Hence, he

submitted that, looking to the materials, it is the complainant and his supporters, who are the aggressing party and responsible for initiation of the

said incident. Hence, he submitted that the injured has been already discharged from the hospital. The petitioner is ready to abide by any

reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, submitted to allow the petition and to admit the petitioner for anticipatory bail.

Learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the bail petition on the ground that the injured was in the hospital as inpatient for a period of

10 days and thereafter he was discharged and again he was admitted to the hospital for the second time. Though he discharged, still he is

complaining of pain and taking follow-up treatment and he is not in a position to give the statement. Hence, he submitted that in view of the

situation, the present petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

I have perused both the FIR?s pertaining to Crime No.54/2017 and Crime No.55/2017. The time, date and place of the incident are one and

the same. So, the materials go to show that they are the case and counter-case. Therefore, who is the aggressor and who is responsible in initiation

of the incident is to be ascertained by the trial Court after full fledged trial. Looking to the materials on record and as it is submitted by both the

sides, injured has been discharged from the Hospital, no doubt, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that still he is

getting follow-up treatment and looking to the alleged offences, they are triable by the Magistrate Court. Since the petitioner herein has undertaken

that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be admitted to

anticipatory bail by imposing reasonable conditions.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent- Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest for

the alleged offence punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326 and 504 of IPC registered in respondent police station in Crime No.54/2017, subject

to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to co-operate with further

investigation.

iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the

surety bond. Since the main petition itself disposed of, the application IA No.1/2017 for interim bail does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, it is also disposed of.