High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 06 KAR CK 0037

Shankranaika vs State Of Karnataka Rep Through Channagiri P.S, By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru - 560001

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 26 June 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
M G Uma, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 4892 Of 2024

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

10 paragraphs · 359 words

M G Uma, J

1.

The petitioner is seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.PC in Crime No.128/2024 of Channagiri Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Channagiri, Davanagere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant- Sri Ravi Shankara.

2.

Heard Sri Sree Harsha A.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

3.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following:

REASONS

4.

The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. He was apprehended on 13.03.2024 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The son of the injured lodged the first information making specific allegations against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner with an intention to cause the death of the injured, assaulted him with machete/sickle. It is stated that the weapon used in commission of the offence was recovered from the spot. There are eye witnesses to the incident. As per the copy of the discharge summary, the injured has sustained sickle cut injury over left upper orbital area of lower eyelids, left wrist medial aspect and left middle finger. The injured was aged 76 years and he was discharged after two days. It is noticed that charge sheet is not yet filed. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for bail for the present.

5.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in negative. As a result, petition stands dismissed.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to move similar petition before the trial Court after filing charge sheet. Liberty is reserved as prayed for.