AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajendra Badamikar, J
The petitioners have filed the petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for enlarging them on bail in Cr.No.116/2023 registered by Hulsoor Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.11.2023 at about 8.00 a.m., SHO has received the MLC from Government Hospital, Bidar and on the basis of MLC, a constable was deputed for recording the statement of injured complainant. Accordingly, Head Constable went to the hospital and he recorded the statement of the injured which came to be registered in Cr.No.116/2023. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 had grudge against the complainant suspecting that he has informed the police about transportation of PDS rice and regularly used to quarrel with him in this regard. It is further alleged that on 21.05.2023 at 11.30 p.m., when the complainant was sitting in the courtyard of the School in the village, the petitioners came there and accused Nos.2 & 3 restrained him, while accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner No.1 assaulted him by stick on his head, finger, right side of ribs, thigh etc., It is also alleged that other two petitioners have also fisted him on his stomach and back and he was abused as well as threatened. According to the prosecution some of the persons have pacified the quarrel and the petitioner was shifted to private hospital and then he returned to his house. Subsequently, his parents were intimated about this incident and the father and brother came there and they again shifted him to the Government Hospital wherein a requisition was sent by the Government Hospital and subsequently, this complaint was filed in the hospital. The petitioners were said to have been arrested on 27.11.2023 and they were remanded to custody. They approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking regular bail and their bail petition came to be rejected and hence, they are before this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned the learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is delay in lodging the complaint and the injured is already discharged from the hospital and injuries were not on any vital part of the body. He would also assert that since 27.11.2011, the petitioners are in custody and as per the case of the prosecution recovery is already concluded and hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioners on bail asserting that the offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with a death or life imprisonment.
Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the petitioners have assaulted the injured with club on his head, chest and other parts of the body and he suffered grievous injuries and in case they are enlarged on bail there is every possibility of they tampering the prosecution witnesses by jumping on bail. Hence, it is prayed for rejection of the bail petition.
Having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident that the alleged incident is said to have been taken place on 25.11.2023 at night 11.30 p.m. Further the allegations of the prosecution disclose that immediately after the incident, the injured was shifted to a private hospital and after obtaining treatment there, he was discharged and returned to the house. Subsequently, his father and brother got information and admitted to the Government Hospital wherein the said complaint is said to have been recorded.
At the outset, there is delay of nearly 36 hours in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained. Further, the allegations of the prosecution disclose that the victim/complainant was first admitted in private hospital and obtained treatment. But what is the history given before the private hospital is not disclosed by the prosecution. The allegations are grievous injuries are there, there but the records disclose that the injury is in the form of fracture to the right phalanx and grievous injury is not on the vital part of the body. Further, on the head cut lacerated wound is noticed which is simple in nature. Though there are allegations regarding assault on the ribs, no injuries were traced on the ribs. Apart from that, the records disclose that the investigating officer at the instance of the petitioners has recovered the material objects alleged to have been used for commission of the offence. The petitioners are in custody since last more than one month and major portion of the investigation is already concluded. Their presence is no more required by the Investigating Agency. Considering these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting the petitioners on regular bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
Petitioners are directed to be released on bail in Cr.No.116/2023 registered by Hulsoor Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to following conditions:-
i) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;
ii) They shall appear before the Court on all hearing dates without fail, except when they are specifically exempted from doing so and shall co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
iii) They shall not involve in any criminal activities.
iv) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the SHO on 1st and 15th of each month until final report is submitted.