CRL.P/7914/2014 of RAVI KUMAR @ KODIHALLI MANJU Vs STATE BY MALUR POLICE STATION on 30 December 2014

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 8respectively in the FIR in respect of the offencespunishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324,448, 307, 394, 504, 506, 427 R/W 149 of IPC and U/S.3(1)(11) of SC/ST (POA) Act (herein referred as ‘ACT’

2. The allegation against the accused persons isthat, on the night of 16.11.2014 ten accused persons.along with other persons armed with deadly weapons.trespassed into the house of the complainant andassaulted the inmates of the house with an intention todo away with the life of the complainant. Accused No.1.assaulted the complainant with iron rod etc.,

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits thatthe 4[th]petitioner herein belongs to Schedule Caste.Accused Nos. 5 and 6 lodged complaint againstRajanna/complainant in this case on the same day inrespect of a incident that allegedly occurred at 7.30 p.m. —The said case was registered in Crime No.321/2014 inrespect of the offences punishable under Section 324 ofIPC. As a counterblast of the said case, the|complainant has resorted to file this false case and it isnot the case of the prosecution that any of the accusedabused the complainant by referring to his caste. Thattakes away the case from the fold of Schedule Caste andschedule Tribe (Provisions of Atrocities Act). Theinjured persons did not suffer serious injuries. Thecomplainant had not been hospitalised but treated asout- patient. In view of political rivalry in the village,the petitioners are brought to book. The petitioners are —permanent residents at the address shown in causetitle. In view of the registration of the above case, the petitioners apprehend their arrest and they may beenlarged on bail. ©

4. Learned HCGP has opposed the bail petition.

o. For disposal of this petition, I take note of thefact that the son of complainant of this case is anaccused in Crime No.319/2014 registered in respect ofan incident which allegedly is prior in time to theincident of the present case. While the incident of thiscase is said to have occurred at about 9.45 p.m., theincident of Crime No.321/2014 is said to have occurredat 7.30 p.m. The complaint allegation does not attractany of the provisions of the Act. The incident had notculminated in serious injuries to the victim of theincident. The petitioners are not shown to have criminalantecedents. In the circumstances, there is noimpediment to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners,subject to conditions.

ORDER

1) The petition is allowed.

? The petitioners are granted anticipatory bail for a period of one month, subject to.

Conclusion

the following conditions :

a.They shall make themselvesavailablebeforetheInvestigating Officer for theiravailablebeforetheInvestigating Officer for their interrogation and co-operate with the further course otf investigation.

b.If the Investigating Officer were

TOCauS€eTCCOVECTYoT|anyincriminating material at theirinstance, they are at liberty toincriminating material at theirinstance, they are at liberty to do so.

CcIf they were to be detained formore than 24 hours duringmore than 24 hours during interrogation, they shall be producedbeforethe jurisdictional Magistrate.

d.In the event of their arrest,

they shall be enlarged on bail

by executing a seli-bond in a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for

the likesum..

ecThey shall not prevail upon the prosecution witness.

Sd/-

JUDGE.