High CourtsSingle Bench

Vijayakumara @ Kumara vs State

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 15 April 2021 · Citation: (2021) 04 KAR CK 0089

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 354(B), 427, 504, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 2759 Of 2021
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

44 paragraphs · 821 words

Ashok G.Nijagannavar, J

1.

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by Hiriyur Rural Police Station in

Crime No.59/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 354(B), 323, 324, 427, 506 r/w 149 IPC, pending on the file of

Prl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hiriyur.

2.

The facts briefly stated in the petition are that on the complaint filed by Smt. Veena, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that on

02.03.2021 afternoon at about 1.30 p.m., the petitioner Vijaykumara @ Kumara and others by forming unlawful assembly and by holding weapons

picked up quarrel with the complainant. Then accused No.1 tried to assault with the sickle on her neck, but the complainant escaped the said blow.

Further, all accused have assaulted the complainant's husband and her sons with an intention to commit murder. Thereafter, they have fled away from

the spot by threatening to take away their lives.

3.

After registering the case, the police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioner. The bail petition filed by the petitioner before the Sessions

Court seeking anticipatory bail is rejected.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent â€" State. Perused the records.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the petitioner had filed a complaint against Veena (complainant) on 01.03.2021 in the

Hospital while taking treatment, as the complainant - Veena, her husband and their children had assaulted him. As a counterblast, this complaint has

been filed by Veena with a vindictive motive to harass the petitioner. The ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not at all attracted. In the event of arrest

and detention, the petitioner would be put to great hardship and injustice.

6.

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the complaint is filed by the injured victim and there are specific

allegations that the petitioner and other accused have assaulted the complainant and her family members. There are no valid grounds to hold that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

7.

On perusal of the prosecution records available at this stage, it is evident that the statement of the petitioner was recorded by the police in the

Hospital on 01.03.2021 while he was taking treatment. The said statement discloses that the complainant - Veena, her husband Paramesha and their

children had abused and assaulted the petitioner and his family members. Later, as a counterblast, the complaint is filed by Veena namely the

complainant. No medical records are forthcoming to show that the complainant has sustained grievous injuries on account of the assault done by the

petitioner. The complaint allegations are that the petitioner tried to assault with a sickle and the complainant has escaped the blow. Thus, no injuries

are caused to the complainant. The ingredients of Section 307 IPC are not clearly attracted. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion

or to give a finding on these records, which is not permissible while considering the bail application.

8.

The grounds stated in the bail petition and submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner goes to prove the apprehension of arrest and

detention of the petitioner. All other offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The only objection of the prosecution is

that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to abscond and interfere with the investigation. The said objection can be set right by imposing

stringent conditions.

9.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner

subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is allowed.

Consequently, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest by Hiriyur Rural Police in connection with Crime No.59/2021 for

the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 307, 354(B), 323, 324, 427, 506 r/w 149 IPC, subject to following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. On appearance of

petitioner, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate and release him on bail;

ii. The petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction

of the Investigating Officer;

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; and

iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses.

v. The petitioner shall mark his attendance in respondent - Hiriyur Rural Police Station, on 1st of every calendar month until submission of the final

report.