P. MANAS NAIDU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner / accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to enlarge him on bail.

(2.) Prosecution case in nutshell as per FIS is as under; The son-in-law of the injured had lodged a complaint before the respondent-Police alleging that on 24.06.2020 at 7.00 a.m. his father-in-law went out of house on his motorcycle stating that he was going for walking, thereafter on the same day at 11.15 a.m. the complainant received an information from his friends that his father-in-law was assaulted by unknown persons and was admitted in Govt. Hospital, Yadgiri, accordingly the complainant had been to the hospital and saw that his father-in-law was taking the treatment, thereafter he lodged a complaint before the police and on the basis of the complaint a case in Crime No.52/2020 came to be registered for the offences under Section 307 of IPC that of attempting to commit murder among other offences namely, under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the complaint was lodged against unknown persons and the petitioner is not named in the complaint. Further submitted that the petitioner is a student studying in Engineering at Manday District and in this regard he has produced some documents viz., Fee receipt for having paid the fee, Hall Ticket and also time table of examination schedule. Further submitted that the petitioner has not involved in the alleged crime, but the police have falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case. Further submitted that even the learned Sessions Judge while considering the bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. had observed in the order that there are no convincing documents produced to show that the petitioner is a student and studying in Engineering and no such documents made available before the court. But the learned Sessions Judge at para No.21 has observed that even though the learned Sessions Judge for a moment inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but because of there being no convincing materials in that regard, learned Sessions Judge refused to grant bail to the petitioner considering the fact that there is complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. The petitioner is completely alien to the crime and further the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than 1 and 1/2 months. Petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this court while releasing him on bail. On these grounds prayed to allow the bail petition.