I-J Cri. P E5509/O9 Aged about 24 years, All residing at Horeyala Village, Gundlupet Taluk. Chamarajanagar District. PETITIONER/ S [Sri. G.K. Shivaprakash & Devaru Assets., Advs.) AND State by Gundlupet Police, Represented by its station House Officer, Gundlupet Town, Gundlupet Taluk. T = p (Sri. Satish R. Girji, HCGPJ =¢=*>I<=!¢* This Criminal Petition .fi'le_d under Seetiori.;438 Cr.P.C; V by the Advocate praying to enlarge the pet.itiox'1ers: on bail, in the event of their arrest in Cri.!ne"No';420/2009A of°Gundlupet P.S., Chamarajanagar.vforfithe:offences'?/U/S 143. 148, 34:. 307 r/W Sec.149 of 1pc." ~ * 1 " 'coming on for Orders, this day, the Court, made theijpfoliayvingt ORDER
«Petitioners have sought for anticipatory bail
ia.pprehexitiixVig:’arrest in Crime No.420/2009 for the offence
punishab1é’~”ej;;:iaer Section 143, 147, 143, 341. 307 readwith
sectio.n”1V49’IPc by the Gundlupet Police Station.
The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition
. -‘=ifl;’e as under: ()4…
3 C1’E_ P 6509/{)9
Siddaraju a resident of Horayala Village belonging to
Schedule Tribe community submitted his complian.t_Vtop_lPolice
on 25.10.2009. The facts in the complaint reve’al’th_at:
5 days earlier to the incident, there was a…quarrel:’betvre’en
two parties, namely, Krishna and;:Ra_;ieishV 0
regard was registered by theVpPolicei4ic;ni’the said,
3.00 p.m. when he was procerepding Heycre ta
Begur Village, he caIné~.;_1flear.*thé lat”‘th’ait time, he
found all the petitioners unlawful assembly
and armed withljpthe clubs and
stones in complainant and abused
him ilhgiivinig threat to his life, the
Petitioiierl” No’. assaulted the complainant
with the ciho.ppp.er0and._Vtlhel-complainant sustained the injuries
p_ near~i.hisiA’ieft eyes .an_d,the rest of the petitioners are said to
have assau«.1,ted__ the injured with the clubs, stones etc..
l’Mean.while’;»._pfewV”elders of the village came and after their
inteiwenitiorii they pacified all of them and as some persons
H _fihar.l__ informed the Police and by that time, the Police came
‘t_here;, the petitioners seeing the Police left the clubs, stones
….and chopper at the place and ran away. The injured was
taken in the Police jeep to the Hospital and was treated in
4 Crl. P 6509/O9
Gundlupet Government Hospital. It is at this juncture that
the complainant submitted his compiaint on these facts
which came to be registered on 25.10.2009 at
p.111.
3. The petitioners submit thatthey areivinnocent_.f’VThey 1. it
have not committed any crime Zandifithlat
falsely implicated in the inciiriienlz due’ sortie
petitioners also submit that willing to
abide by any conditionstliat be for their release
on bail. Furthermore,..t1~i§;:.Vcoiins§,E’,/ffiiif.:/jijyitti petitioners has
produced they ..i’etitiener No.7. who is a
student in Mysf’sre_V:’R1a11.araja College. On these grounds. the
petitioners have ‘the grant of anticipatory bail.
_;jl4. The “ie_arnedv’High Court Government Pleader has
“petition and submits that there is ample material
tops’-.show prima facie that the petitioners are
respons_ib1e_= for the offences registered and in the
Vi”»circun.1stances, he has sought for the rejection of the
it ‘ ‘ lihappliucation. L
Crl. 9 6509/09
Ln
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and also the High Court Government Pleader. The point that
arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the petitioners are entitled
the anticipatory bail sought for ?”
6. As could be seen frommhthe a.liega:tions: in
complaint, the first petitioner is said-toflhave…assa’uit.edgt’£e
complainant with the chopper aniclpthe in”uruyi4_cert;ificate;
produced by the petitioners reyeals an injuryjiinearitihe left eye
brow with periorbital ‘haen_ioto:ina._ around eye with
bleeding. Furthermore, so far as l’€B_:vS.l.i->(:}Vf the petitioners are
concerned; alleg’ed”in”theucofiplaint that they assaulted
the coi’nplain’anf _.clubs and stones. The injury
certificateiireireals-that ‘«apart from the injuries referred to
abow¥:_, the compia.ir1__a__n?t sustained the two injuries which is
with swelling of left elbow joint and the
“thir.d_ism’teu»de’r;a’ess over the right elbow joint and abrasion of
1/2 over the tip of left index finger. The Doctor
certified that the injures are simple in nature. The
.._perusal of the certificate further reveals that While the
~ injured was admitted in the hospital. he has stated the
V correct name of the Petitioner Nos.1 and 8 whereas in respect
4
6 Cri. P 6509/09
of the other persons, the names are not properly mentioned.
The Petitioner No.2 is Rajesh but in the certificate. it is
mentioned as Raju. The Petitioner No.3 is Chikamahadevaiah
whereas, the name mentioned in the is
Chikkamada and Petitioner No.5 is
the certificate, it is mentioned as Nlpnprthy ‘.a’nd– ,VS-autos .
the extent of the persons whoseV=.,_nam-aflhas been “correctly
mentioned in the injury certificatefprima fac’i’e_it is’; to
considered, as the complainantvlat’ the timeiiiof admission in
the hospital has given ijthe n_aimVeVsi”,i5’etitionelr l\ios.1 and 8
correctly and so far as the ‘T-rest”of’th.–e_pe1fsons are concerned,
neither”th”e”11aInes;?;are”‘pro’per1y”fnentioned and in respect of
some. there is _no.,”meintien”J_.of the names at all. So in the
circurnstanc.es.-wh~enA’the.,~incident of assault took place, the
~ , & possibility of the”‘cor_nplainant implicating some more persons
cannot .,b’e.oyer ruled. It is in these circumstances that the
ll-‘et’itj_on’er”_’i¥los,.2’V to 7 whose name is not properly mentioned
andxtherei issno specific part attributed against these persons
Jin ,theV””assau1t, I think that they are entitled to the
anticipatory bail sought for. So far as Petitioner Nos.1 and 8
it = ..are concerned. their names have been clearly mentioned and
7 Crl. P 6509/09
the injury certificate and the prima facie, material placed on
record reveals their involvement in the crime.
7. So far as anticipatory bail is concerned, the
discretion vested with the Court has to be to
protect the interest of innocent persons and
granted sparingly in exceptional cases. Tho”ag’l1,lthe_ia.cts’J”
reveal that an incident has taken a.s:”th’eV:n.nr11her
of persons involved in the’ incidenthisp
appears to be some doubt as regar_d’s the of these
persons. ln the circuArns_tan’ces_.’pA of the opinion that
Petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are’ ‘tlie__’.V–anticipatory bail
sought’: for prima facie material against
Petitioner are entitled to the relief. Hence,
I ansfsverggthe pcintpartiy affirmative and partly in negative
. and ‘epro3c’eed’ to passxthe following:
ORDER
‘ ‘ Thve.pe:tit’ion of Petitioner Nos.1 and 8 is dismissed.
‘rr;e;. petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are granted anticipatory bail
“:.’f:’).VI’i aperiod of three months from today. In the event of their
‘ arrest in Crime No.420/ 2009 for the offence punishable under
“section 143, 147, 3.43, 341, 307 readwith Section 149 IPC by
all
8 Cr]. P b’509,/09
the Gundlupet Police Station, they are ordered to be released
on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each for the lik€Sl.1§;’1.._il0 the
satisfaction of the arresting authority with
following conditions: i i i if i
i) The petitioners 2 tom
before the concerned Police-..izStat.ionioi\§
13.01.2010. V’ ”
ii) The said petitioineirs _shall’-coéoperate
with the investigation and ‘siliialfnpot caiise any
interference or hin:’;ranc–e thiie progress of the
investigation.
iii}l.j’n[‘he'”3.’saidipetitioners shall not cause
any threa.t,V force..o’r–.eoercion to any witnesses
of the cen1piaiinant.,fl»r.
Viv)i”l’he_______Petitioner Nos.1 and 8 shall
sin*rende_r before the Police] Court.
is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-*
JUDGE