High Court Karnataka High Court

Mahesha vs State Of Karanataka on 22 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mahesha vs State Of Karanataka on 22 January, 2010
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22"'nA2 OF JANUARY, zozaehrm
BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PAcHHAéUa£z =_

CRIMINAL PETITION No é33.g§ 2d:Q'»v; "h

BETWEEN:

K.Mahesha,
S/o. Krishnamurthy,
Aged 22 years,

R/at No.26, 2"d crossprmw."
Singayanna PaLya{' o T _« g '_tu
Bangalore. Ht ;*_ _*"_ '_A. 'V" g PETITIONER/S

{By M/s. VT§hnn§Murthj é Aeéoca. Advs.3

AND:

State of Kagnatakafr

By Mahaoevapupa P,s.°.'" m RESPONDENT/3
"'a{ByC$&i,_Raja Sobramanya Bhat, HCGP.]
'k**

Thié_c£i.p. is filed u/Section 439 Cr.P C. by

u'5hWthe Advocate for the petitioner praying to enlarge

'h._thee.§etitioner on bail in Cr. No.489/O9 of

'amahadevapura Police Station, for the Offences p/u/S.

;h307 r/w. 34 IPC yending on the file of the X ACMM,

H~_:Bangalore.

This Crl.P. coming on for Orders on this day,

the Court made the following:



ORDER

The petition is filed seeking bail having been
arrested. for the offence punishable under Section

30? r/w. 34 IPC.

2. The facts relevant for the purpese of this”

petition are as under:

On 22.12.2009 at about ‘a.oo~.§.fi,;-.thét¢, was

festival of “Goddesses Annamma” and in this regard I

there was a quarrel as to 7who_ is “toiiperfornt the
festival. It is alleged that the petitiener caused

assault on Maheshe, the injured with knife by giving
threat te his’life, aihe injured was taken to the

hospital for*treatmentf: Later the complaint for the

Sdabove said offence was filed. During the course of

finvestigationg the petitioner has been arrested. As

conld” be iéeéh from the allegations made in the

‘compleint, Vaccused Nos.l and 2 who caused the

iinstigation have been released on bail under Section

.jt3aic£.p.c.

3. The petitioner submits that he is innocent

“and that he has not committed any offence and

further he is ready and. willing to abide by any

b<

3 if: L . 3 Z
conditions that may be imposed for his release on
bail. On these grounds he has sought for grant of

bail. T ,

4. The learned Government Pleader has opposed

the petition.

5. Heard the learned counself for _the_ °

petitioner and also the learned Gouernfient’fileader.’t

6. The perusal of the complaint reveals that7

there was a quarrel with regard to the person who is

to perform the festival, It ia in this context, the

incident has” eccurred7cand: at the instigation of
accused Nosfil and 2 the petitioner is said to have

caused the assault on the injured. The injured was

xftreatefi gandz discharged from the hospital. Taking

‘cons»_ider.ation the fact that the other accused

haue been granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., I

‘think it”‘:is a fit case wherein the bail could be

granted. by imposing certain conditions. Hence I

–§pt¢geed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail on executing a

$4

personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000~00 with one
solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaotion
of the Court below with further folloeing
conditions: H l I

1) The petitioner shallmV atten’d”‘–.tfneV”‘w.
Police Station concefneohregnlarlylgth
on every Sunday in hetfieen igloo;
a.m. and 11.00 until

orders.

ii) He shall ‘not bauseuflany. threat,
force, coercion .an’ lnfiuence to
any of the pfosecution witnesses.

Sd/~
JUDGE

Ksm*o,’