Suhail A. & Ors vs State Of Karnataka

R. Nataraj, J

The petitioners have sought anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in Crime No.31/2026 registered by the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 352, 351(3), 79, 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 190 of the BNS, 2023.

Briefly stated, the case of the complainant was that on 02.04.2026, he received a telephone call that his brothers were assaulted by Baban and family members and that they were shifted to the hospital. He claimed that he went to the hospital and found that his younger brothers were injured. He alleged that on 02.04.2026, one Mr.Chand Sab sat in front of the house obstructing ingress and egress. When he was questioned, his grandchildren namely accused Nos.1 to 8 all formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons and assaulted him on his shoulder and hands. When his brother tried to intervene, he was also assaulted. In that regard, they lodged a complaint. He alleged that on 05.04.2026, one of the injured recorded statement against the accused persons. At about 07:30 in the evening, when the complainant was near the FCA railway go down, he was informed that the accused and the brother of the complainant were quarrelling. When he went there, he was assaulted by the accused. Therefore, he requested the respondent to initiate suitable action against the accused. Based on this, a case in Crime No.31/2026 was registered. An application was filed by the petitioners herein for anticipatory bail, which was rejected in terms of an order dated 29.04.2026. Therefore, the petitioners are before this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 had punched the complainant on his left cheek with an iron ring. He contends that insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, there is no allegation. He contends that petitioners apprehend arrest by the respondent and they be granted anticipatory bail. He also contends that the offence alleged are neither punishable with death or life imprisonment and that the petitioners are willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed.

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that there was a feud between the family of the complainant and the accused and that the petitioners had joined the accused in assaulting the complainant. She therefore submits that, if the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, it would flare up tensions between the two families. She therefore prays that the petition be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent.

A perusal of the information furnished by the complainant to the respondent would show that petitioner No.1 had allegedly assaulted the complainant with an iron ring on his cheek and mouth. There appears to be no allegation insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned. It also appears that the alleged incident was due to previous crime registered by the complainant against the accused persons. As rightly contended by the petitioners, the offences are neither grave nor punishable with death or life imprisonment and hence, the Trial Court should have favourably considered granting anticipatory bail.

In that view of the matter, the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed.

ii) The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.31/2026 registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4), 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 352, 351(3), 79, 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 190 of the BNS, 2023, subject to them complying the following conditions:

a. They shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- each with solvent surety for each of them for the likesum and to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

b. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer once every week on a Saturday at 11 a.m. until a charge sheet is filed.

c. They shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused or suspected of commission of which they are suspected. They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade they from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer or tamper with the evidence.

d. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court until a final report is filed.

e. In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, it is open for the Investigating Officer / prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.

Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file her memo of appearance within 10 days.