AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vijaykumar A. Patil, J
This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.S.S.') seeking prayer to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on anticipatory bail in Crime No.163/2025 registered by Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad for the offences punishable under Sections 189(3), 191(2), 191(3), 109, 324(3), 352, 351(2) R/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.S.') pending on the learned III Additional, C.J. and C.J.M. Court, Dharwad, Hubballi-Dharwad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aged about 25 years and the police have falsely implicated him in the crime. It is submitted that even the entire complaint is read, no case is made out against the petitioner No.1. Hence, he seeks to enlarge the accused No.1 on bail in case of his arrest.
Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition and submits that in the midnight on 16.09.2025 the petitioner and others have put the loud music cause galata, thrown the stones on the complainant's house and on 19.09.2025 they have pelted the stones on his house and attempted to kill him. Hence, he seeks to reject the petition.
I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader. Having considered the submissions on both sides and perused the material available on record.
The respondent/police based on the complaint of Madivalayya Shivalingayya Pujar registered the case in Crime No.163/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 189(3), 191(2), 191(3), 109, 324(3), 352, 351(2) R/w 190 of the B.N.S.
The perusal of the complaint averment and the FIR indicate that the complainant is aged about 60 years and he is a retired employee and the allegation is that the accused and others have caused nuisance by playing the loudspeaker at 3.00 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. and on a later date, they have pelted the stones on his residence. The records indicate that the learned Sessions Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for release him on anticipatory bail. It is also pointed out that the petitioner/accused No.1 has no criminal antecedent.
Taking note of the nature of the allegations in the complaint and the offences alleged, and keeping in mind the personal liberty of the petitioner/accused No.1, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed. Moreover, the offences alleged are not punishable with imprisonment for life or with the death penalty and no custodial interrogation is required.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER.
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The petitioner/Accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.163/2025 of respondent/police, on executing personal bond for a sum of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the jurisdictional Court.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Jurisdictional police within a period of one month from today to execute personal bond and also to furnish surety.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences.
iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.
iv) The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required.
In case, if the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, liberty is reserved to the prosecution to file necessary application for cancellation of bail.