High Court Karnataka High Court

P Balakrishna vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
P Balakrishna vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2010
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
"V "  {Sri;"Sa'tia*h  (}ir_§i, HHCGP)

I Crl. {-7 £5425/0?}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2o1€!,"""'»t

BEFORE

THE HODFBLE 1VIR.JUSTICE A.s.PAcH};A1fUz{i3: hi ii i it

CRIMINAL PETITION N:oIé4'25./2993.  
BETWEEN V i '

P.Ba1akrishna,

S / o.Pi11appa.

19 years.  . 

residing at Kurigantu Man.e§"*.. f

Devanahakli Town, " " - '

Bangalore Rural District. _ . '   _ 

(in Judicial Custocijfl   --  "  ; ,.".''.PETITI0NER/S

(Sri.V.Kodandai--rameGowtia,  1.  it 

AND .... ..
State of  _  ' _
By Devanahualiié Police ~--Si;atio_ "." "

Representedobuyi Public Proaeoutor,
Bangalore Rural _I)istrict.W '  RESPONI)EN'l'/ S

>E¢>E¢*>E¢>i<
.  '15hi.sf"--cj_rizi;ina1 Petition is fiied under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
praying to teioase the petitioner on bail in' S.C.No.289/2009

_ j pending on the fiie of Fast Track Court at Devanahaili. for the
_ h  Vxoffence Vpunishable under Sections 143, 147, 148. 307, 302
"  "fea.ciwai_th 149z1=c.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders. this day. the

it (iourt, made the following:



'- Cfi. P ('$425/{)9

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439

requesting for grant of bail having been arres.ted_&’Vfo_r§’t:he¢

offence under Sections 143, 147. 148.

149 IPC. H T T A T

2. The facts relevant for theiapurpiose
are as under: 0 0 h V V 0
One Mr.R.Manjun’a.f_ha. …l”‘a:A.’if¢§’id§nt flo’f*Be§vanahalli
Town submitted the on 13.05.2009

at about 3.00 a.ni. in: ‘t~ii’_e._coriri3$laint reveal that.

the complainétlijt hai1″ad’vanced”‘a1i’amount of Rs.I0,000-00
to one on 12.05.2009, as he was in

need of money,» aAskuedi’~~ii’Mr.Mohan Kumar to repay the

.”V.amor_1ii:t :a__fnd_Vacco”rd.i.ngly, CW.2 Mohan Kumar was coming

V7__to the complainant and at about 10.45 p.m.,

wh-an”~ahe.VWia’s: Anjaneya Swamy Temple, it is alleged

[that l’-bk-..ci1se.d’iNos.1 to 4 and others were quarrelling with

V’ we ‘deceased Subramani and Mune Gowda and were

for withdrawal of a case. He felt that his

:54

Cr}. F’ 6425/09

‘.3

intervention was not necessary and that they may be

discussing with regard to the compromise in the

3. Later, Mr.Mohan Kumar CW.2 paid__the. it

Rs.10.000-O0 and after staying h01.r_se_2.ofl’Hth’e

complainant for some time,returned’-._back atV’aib’onut-.ip

11.45 p.m.. he came scared ‘an:di.running’tnhthiei house of’

the complainant andtold Nos.1 to 6
caused the assault on and Mune
Gowda with and when he
saw the noticed Mr.Mohan
Kumarivland ca’use’;the assault. CW.12 also
told towards the house, he

sustained injury du_ei’t_o ‘the assault by a long by one of the

that”he…escaped from them. Immediately, the

co.niplainantgan.d CW.12 Mohan Kumar went to the place

anzlhisawi accused running away from the spot. The

‘.Vheadxp.oVrtion of the deceased Mune Gowda was completely

A ..:i’cutli’-and Subramani had sustained severe injuries on the

chest, neck etc. He was shifted in the vehicle to

w

4 Cr}. P 64:25/O9
Government Hospital and later, he died at about a.rn.
in the night. i

4. There was a complaint before a ~
incident with regard to the assaultand it

the death and it is in this regard tifiat”t1ie_ ‘ee”m;5I?.:i:–héht

alleges that the accused ca1’ise’d_ the’vassanlt,ron’v«both the,’

deceased and the accused were__:resp’qnsible*«for death.
The complaint filed on”‘–these_Lfacts”‘was”registered by the
Police and duringathe investigation, petiltioner has been

arrested.

The pet’ition.er’ «s_t1’brr1i.ts that he is innocent. He has
not comnfitted ‘an3Vr”~.offe’nce’fimuch less the one that has

been alleged aa:1d’t’hatV’ his name does not appear in the

and therefore, in the circumstances, he requests

‘1t’ogra_n1. imposing reasonable conditions.

..__vThe”‘High Court Government Pleader opposes the

:petition’v.and states that there are eye witnesses and there

_iis».gp–ri1t1a facie material against the petitioner and that his

naine was revealed during the course of the investigation.

as

5 Crl. $3 £3425/{}E)
On these grounds, he has sought for the dismissalof the
petition.

7. I have heard the Eearned counsel

and also the High Court Governme;ntii’:i:eade«r. ‘1 ”

8. As could be seenirorn the Min; the-is
complaint, the compiainantg___’_i:anc_l_ tithe eye
witnesses, but they do Ith’eg’v’:p’a;—ticipation of the
petitioner in the crime,Itv:i.s:”on’iy;’»aiter 15 days after
the incident} additijonaiii”statement of the
cornptainantjv time. he stated that
the petiiiiviogieir at the time of the incident
and had causing the assault by the

accused; This fact’ not stated by him when he lodged

the: to Police nor CW.2 referred to the

the petitioner. In the circumstances. I am

._ of opi.nion’ that this is a fit case wherein the bail has to

granted by imposing certain conditions. Hence, I

is iprhoceed to pass the foilowingz

«.¢'{‘\__W

(3 Cr}. P 6425/U9

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordeted to

be released on bail on his executing a personal*”o-o_nd’_”foijv’lat

sum of Rs.25.000-00 with two solvent S§11fe’t.ies:.A_l.:fo::f the

likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned.

to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shallV”attend the each of

the date of hearing;-“” -. V

ii) He shall not calise t_hi”cAaVt,z force or
coercion to t_heV:’viwitne«{5sVes of the

co_xnp1aina11t;’ . 1′

The p_etiti’c’n ‘accofdirlgly disposed of.

sd/~
JUDGE