Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 722 OF 2024 BETWEEN:
1. DARSHAN Y, S/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/AT 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SHAKTHIVELUNAGARA, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU - 560 030.
2. ABHISHEK R, S/O RENUNATHAN, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT NO. 168, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS, VINAYAKANAGARA, ADUGODI POST, BENGALURU - 560 030. …PETITIONERS Digitally (BY SRI. G.A. SWATHNARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR signed by SMT. JAYANTHI R, ADVOCATE) SOWMYA D Location: High AND: Court of Karnataka
STATE OF KARNATAKA, WILSON GARDEN P.S, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP) -2- THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.2/2024 OF WILSONGARDEN P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.307, 504 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 6th ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging them on bail in Crime No.2/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 307, 504 r/w Section 34 of the IPC pending on the file of the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that the complainant is residing in the Shaktivelunagara Adugodi Post, Bengaluru City, along with his mother and family. It is alleged that on 31.12.2023 midnight at 11.30 p.m., in Shaktivelunagara, 1st Main Road, 1st Cross in front of Ganesh Temple the residents were enjoying and celebrating the arrival of new year and were dancing
-3-
there. It is alleged that the cousin of the complainant named Vasantha was also dancing in that party and at that time, petitioner No.1 intentionally pushed him. Then Vasantha asked him to go and dance at some other place, then petitioner No.1 is alleged to have abused him in a vulgar language and slapped on the cheek of Vasantha. When the complainant questioned, it is alleged that petitioner No.1 assaulted on the head of the complainant with knife and as a result he collapsed there. It is further alleged that then the 2nd petitioner came there and he along with 1st petitioner stamped Vasantha and 2nd
petitioner took the knife from petitioner No.1 and assaulted on the fore head of Vasantha. In this regard a complaint came to be lodged on 02.01.2024 at 3.45 pm. On the basis of the complaint F.I.R came to be registered in Crime No.02/2024 and the petitioners were arrested at 11.30 p.m., on the same night. -4-
3. The petitioners approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking regular bail and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
contend that there is a delay in lodging the complaint and the same is not explained. It is also asserted that the alleged incident is said to have taken place in respect of new year celebrations and there is no intention or motive of committing the said offence. He would also contend that recovery is already concluded and the petitioners are strangers to the complainant and they have been falsely implicated in the case. He would also assert that the presence of the petitioners is no more required for the investigating the case and sought for admitting them on
-5- bail by undertaking to abide by the terms and the conditions to be imposed by this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that the investigation is still under progress and Vasantha has suffered grievous injury on his fore head and the statements of witnesses are yet to be recorded. Hence, he would contend that if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of they tampering the prosecution witnesses, jumping on bail and hence, he would seek for rejection of the bail petition.
7. The allegations disclose that the dispute has
taken place during the New Year Celebrations on 31.12.2023 at 11.30 p.m. The allegations are that initially petitioner No.1 slapped the complainant Vasantha and then petitioner No.2 interfered and assaulted the victim by knife on his forehead and then by petitioner No.1 and 2nd petitioner stamped the victim and then he assaulted by knife on the fore head of Vasantha. The records disclose
-6- that the complaint was lodged on 02.01.2024 at 3.45 p.m., and the petitioners are said to have been arrested at
11.30 p.m., in the night on the same day. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 31.12.2023 at night 11.30 p.m., and there is delay in lodging the complaint and the complaint is completely silent as to whether complainant and Vasantha were been to the hospital or not. Even complainant did not disclose the delay in lodging the complaint. Apart from that, if at all, the injured Vasantha and complainant had been to the hospital, they should have revealed the history before the Medical Officer and the same should have been registered as MLC case, but no such evidence is forthcoming.
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader
would contend that the injury certificate issued pertaining to Vasantha discloses that he suffered the incise injury on the forehead, which is grievous injury. But admittedly, there is no allegations of fracture of frontal bone and on -7-
what basis it is reported that incise wound is grievous, is not at all forthcoming. Even the complaint is silent regarding the aspect of Vasantha being admitted in the hospital and undergoing treatment. Further the petitioners are in custody for nearly two months and the records disclose that the presence of the petitioners is no more required and they are sought to be sent to judicial custody. It is further alleged that at the instance of petitioner No.1 the knife alleged to have been used for commission of the offence is already recovered. Hence, question of tampering the prosecution witnesses does not arise at all. The presence of the petitioners is no more
required by investigating agency. Considering these facts
and circumstances and nature of the offences and gravity of the offences, as well as motive, I do not find any impediment in admitting the petitioners on bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader, can be meted by imposing certain -8- conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
2. The petitioners are ordered to be
enlarged on bail in Crime No. 02/2024 of Wilson Garden Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 read with 34 of the IPC, which is pending on the file of the 6th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore city, on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions that:
(i) They shall not indulge in any of the criminal activities
(ii) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.
(iii) They shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless they are exempted by a specific order.
(iv) They shall co-operate for speedy disposal of the matter. -9-
(v) They shall mark their attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on every first and third Saturday of the month till the final report is submitted. Sd/- JUDGE URN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35 CT: BHK