Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/7781/2014 of SRI. NANDISH Vs THE STATE OF BY AREHALLI POLICE on 30 December 2014
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2014 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7781/2014 BETWEEN: 1. Sri. Nandish Son of Devaraj Aged about 23 years R/at Murehalli Village Arehalli Hobli Belur Taluk Hassan District 573 115 2.
IN THB HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATEKED THIS THE [th]DAY OF DECEMBER 2014
BEFORE|
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7781/2014
BHITWER°
1. Sri. Nandishson of Devaray]Aged about 23 years|R/at Murehalli Village|Arehalli Hobl1Belur Taluk.Hassan District 5/3 115)
2. Sri. Kumar.Son of BasavaiahAged about 47 years|R/at Murehalli Village|Arehalli Hobl1Belur Taluk.Hassan District - 573115)
3. Surendra.son of Revannagowda|Aged about 93 years|R/at Nelke Village|Arehalli Hobl1Belur TalukHassan District 5/3 115.
_ PRTITIONBRS
(By Sri.Ramakrishna A.V., Adv.) |
ANI°
The State of by Arehalli PoliceRep by its State Public Prosecutor|High Court of KarnatakaHigh Court Building,Bangalore 560 OO1.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.B. Visweswaraiah, HCGP)
This Crl.P. is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.praying to release the petitioners on bail in the event oftheir arrest in Cr.No.168/14 of Arehalli P.S., Hassanfor the offences p/u/s 323, 324, 504, 355, 506 of IPC.and U/S 3(i) (X) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
This Crl.P. coming on for orders this day, theCourt made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
Page 1 of 2
The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the FIR in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 355, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act 1989.
2. The allegation against the accused persons isthat, on the night of 10.11.14, they abused thecomplainant filthily referring to his caste and theyassaulted him with weapons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, submitsthat the 2['(]petitioner had lodged a complaint againstthe complainant of this case and others on 11.11.14 inrespect of the offences punishable under Sections 379°and 420 of IPC and also under Sections 4(1)(a) & 21 ofthe MMRD Act, which was registered in the same policestation|in.Cr.No.166/ 14.To|counterblasthiscomplaint, the complainant resorted to file thiscomplaint, to budge them to come to his terms. Thepetitioners apprehend their arrest in view of theregistration of the above case.
4. Learned HCGP has opposed the bail petition.
>. For disposal of this petition, I take note of thefact that there is no specific averments as to whoabused the complainant filthily by referring to his caste. —It is not logical to presume that all the four accusedwould sing in chorus the abusive words alleged in thecomplaint. It is highly probable that to counter blastthe previous complaint lodged against the complainant,the present complaint is lodged. Having regard to thefacts and circumstances, there is no impediment toerant anticipatory bail, subject to conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitionersare granted anticipatory bail for a period of one monthfrom the date of obtaining the certified copy of thisorder. If they are arrested within this period, they shallbe released on bail on each of them executing a Selfbond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety each forthe likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting police **%5+$�����+1 ) &22 '�����$+& +'��$ =$+,&%2–0= '���+
5–7=2&%'&'���$ =$ )+50 % '“9%”'+))+) %' &'1–7&''+$��
$2��
“(!8”
�������C�����
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…