Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/10226/2017 of MANJUNATHA H Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 December 2017
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10266/2017 BETWEEN Manjunatha.H S/o late Hanumaiah, Aged about 45 years, R/at No.9/3, 2nd main, 2nd cross, Government Electric Factory, Deepanjali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28[th]DAY OF DECEMBER 2701/7
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10266/2017
BETWEEN
Manjunatna.HS/o late Hanumaian,Aged about 45 years,R/at No.9/3,2[#,]main, 2|[#,]CFOSS,Government Electric Factory,Deepanjali Nagar,Bengaluru — 560 026.
Petitioner |
(By Sri.Rajanna, Advocate)
AND
The State of KarnatakaBy Kyatnasandra Police Station, Tumkur District.
Represented by |State Public Prosecutor,High Court Complex,Bengaluru — 560 OO1.
. RESPONDENT
(By Sri K.Nagesnwarappa, HCGP)
Tnis Criminal Petition is filed Under section 438 Cr.PC.praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his.arrest in Crime No.309/2017 of Kyatnasandra Police Station,|Tumkuru District for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r),|3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) of SC/ST Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the|Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The substance of the complaint is that one Gangamma|w/o. Hanumaiah had created false documents in respect of the|land whicn are nis ancestral property whicn is under his'possession and in that connection the complainant has filed a/|suit and obtained injunction order. He had grown Ragi and.Moong Dal in the said land and on 1.12.2017 at 9.30 a.m. whenthe complaint, his wife and his son were harvesting the crop in.the land, the petitioner came there and picked up a quarrel and|abused them by taking the name of their caste and threatenedto take away their life. Thereafter one Puttaraju bin Veeranna.and his wife Padmamma also came there, abused them and)assaulted the complainant with a club and tried to remove the|clothes of the complainant and insulted her. The complaint came.to be lodged.
2. |Learned counsel for tne petitioner submits that twoother accused nave already been granted Dail.
bail.
3The learned HCGP opposed grant of anticipatory|
4In the context and circumstances of the case,|prima-facie I find no application of the provisions of the Act.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the.petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
5. |Tne petition is allowed. Tne petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest In connection withCr.No.309/2017 of Kyathasandra P.S., Tumkuru District, for the|offence punishable under Sections 324, 354, 504, 506 read with.Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) of|Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, subject to the following conditions:
)<The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for|a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh Only) |with one surety for the like sum to the)satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh Only) |with one surety for the like sum to the)satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
))<The.petitionerShall|appealbeforetheInvestigating Officer on all the future hearing|
*alb/-.
,"“'2”"#, "2 "#, @ '# 1'B%)1', = 1���' 8%18–2'��= )#7'2 )+"“)”#���
�����������