High CourtsSingle Bench

Shantayya S/o Gopayya Guttedar & Anr. vs The State

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 14 February 2018 · Citation: (2018) 02 KAR CK 0049

HON’BLE JUDGES
G.Narendar
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3863>Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973</a>, <a href=3863-438>Section 438</a> - Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest · <a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-147>Section 147</a>, <a href=1767-324>Section
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
200039 of 2018

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

43 paragraphs · 886 words
1.

The present petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail in Crime

No.241/2017 of Aland Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506, 341 R/w

Section 149 of IPC.

2.

The version of the defacto complainant is that, while his son Nagraj was returning from Tadakal, the accused including the petitioners

intercepted him and abused him using filthy language on account of political enmity. That, the first petitioner is said to have snatched the mobile

phone from the said Nagaraj and started beating him. By that time, the complainant is said to have called his son i.e., the victim through his mobile,

but the victim''s mobile was with petitioner No.1 and also he heard the screaming sound in mobile. After hearing his son''s screaming on the mobile

for help, the complainant and another two persons went over there and saw his son being assaulted by the petitioners with stones and sticks and

the complainant got agitated. One Siddugowda took out his licenced gun and fired in the air resulting in the accused running away from the spot.

That, the incident is said to have occurred between 5.45 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. during which period, the victim is also said to have lost his Gold locket

and that the police arrived at the spot and took the injured to the hospital.

3.

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

4.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the injured was taken to the hospital by the police, who allegedly arrived at the

spot. It is stated that the police have arrived at the spot and taken the victim for medical examination. No complaint has been lodged and in fact the

FIR is registered on 16.12.2017. He would also submit that there is no explanation forthcoming for the delay in registering the complaint, when the

police station is situated right behind the hospital. It is also submitted that examination of the injured is by a private hospital.

5.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently object to entertaining the bail petition and would submit that the

petitioners are required for custodial interrogation. On the directions of this Court, learned High Court Government Pleader has placed on record

the copy of the wound certificate issued by one Ganga Multispeciality Hospital.

6.

It is seen that the injured person has been examined on 16.12.2017 at 4.45 p.m. and the injuries noticed are Abrasion over back of neck and

fracture of upper central minor teeth. Hence, the hospital authorities have opined that the above injuries are grievous in nature.

7.

It is the categorical case of the complainant that the incident occurred on 15.12.2017 between 17.45 hours to 18.15 hours. It is also the case of

the complainant that the injured was shifted to the hospital by the police on the same day. The said fact prima facie appears not to be true in the

light of the fact that the wound certificate discloses that the victim was examined only on 16.12.2017 at about 4.45 p.m. The FIR is also registered

on 16.12.2017 only at about 8.00 a.m.

8.

Neither the delay in registering the complaint, nor the delay in having the victim examined by the medical authorities is explained by the learned

High Court Government Pleader satisfactorily. On a specific query, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the petitioners

have no criminal antecedents and are not involved in commission of any heinous crimes. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the petition deserves to

be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed.

9.

The respondent-Police are hereby directed to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail in Crime No.241/2017 of Aland Police

Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 307, 323, 324, 326, 504, 506, 341 R/w Section 149 of IPC, in the event

of their arrest, subject to the following conditions :-

i. The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each for a

likesum to the satisfaction of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Aland;

ii. The petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence nor shall attempt to influence the witnesses or the prosecution;

iii. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without the prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.

iv. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer as and when required and co-operate for investigation.

v. The petitioners shall mark attendance before the concerned police on every Sunday at 10.00 a.m. till filing of the charge sheet.

vi. The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court and execute personal bond, surety bond and furnish surety within thirty days from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

10.

The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made by this Court in the disposal of the petition. The observations are made only

for the purpose of disposal of this petition and the trial Court shall proceed with the trial without being influenced by the observations made by this

Court. Petition is ordered accordingly.