High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 12 KAR CK 0049

MAHANTESH S/O KALLAPPA AARI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 14 December 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.Somashekar
CASE NUMBER
102678 of 2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

23 paragraphs · 1,037 words
1.

This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Hanumasagar P.S. in Crime No.127/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 3323, 354, 354A(1)(ii), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Due to apprehension of the arrest by the Police, this petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest among the grounds urged therein.

2.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

On 20.08.2017 at about 06:00 p.m. when the complainant was present in her house, the accused persons had came near the house of the complainant and abused her in filthy language and when the complainant had come out from the house, in the meanwhile, that the petitioner/accused Mahantesh pushed and pulled her saree in order to outrage her

modesty and Ameenappa assaulted over her person and other accused persons kicked over her person made her to fell on the ground and that the accused persons were not only abused the complainant in filthy language, but also extended life threat and the same reveals in the complaint and as a result of that the complainant sought some injuries. In pursuance of the act of the accused, on filing of the complaint by the complainant, crime came to be registered against the accused, as wherein the Investigating Officer taken up the investigation and the same is still under investigation.

3.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

- accused No.1 and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State.

4.

Whereas, the co-accused Nos.2 to 4 have already been granted bail by the Trial Court relating to the case in Crime No.127/2017, wherein the incident took between the complainant and the accused, as the

accused were passing urinals and same reveals in the complaint, the said act made by the accused was questioned by the complainant. Therefore, the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant by abusing in filthy language and made her to assault.

This theory has been set up by the complainant in order to file a complaint before the respondent - Police, as where the crime came to be registered for the alleged offences. Though the accused did not commit alleged offences and despite of it, the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest this accused without there being any reason. It is further submitted that the accused hails from a respectable family and he is having respect in the eye of society and moreover the accused is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to him. On all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed to enlarge the petitioner on bail as sought for.

5.

Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State vehemently contended that the case in Crime No.127/2017 came to be filed on filing of the complaint by the complainant, wherein the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant and also abused in filthy language as well as made her to outrage her modesty by pulling and pushing and the same is reflected in the complaint as well as in the FIR said to be recorded by the Police. As this accused is absconding since from committing the alleged offences and that itself indicates that there is prima facie materials against the accused in commission of offences. On all these grounds, the learned HCGP seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by this petitioner.

6.

Having regard to these contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner relating to the case in Crime No.127/2017 as well as the learned HCGP for the State are concerned, it is relevant to

state that the case in Crime No.127/2017 came to be filed by the complainant, as this petitioner being arraigned as accused No.1 in the alleged crime that the entire allegation made in the complaint that the accused picked up quarrel with the complainant and also extended life threat as well as kicked over her person and caused some injuries to the complainant.

Subsequent to registration of the crime against the accused persons, the case in Crime Nos.126/2017 and 127/2017 are yet to be investigated by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of witnesses as well as conducting the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Therefore, it is said that at this stage, it does not require for any detailed discussion, while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner, as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that if the petitioner is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence.

As this apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP, could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:

(1) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 20 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of him, in the event of his

arrest by the Hanumasagar P.S. in Crime No.127/2017.

(2) The petitioner shall co-operate with Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, if necessary .

(3) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.

(4) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fortnight as per the English monthly calendar in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of three months before the concerned SHO.

(5) The petitioner shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.

If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.