VINOD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.38/2020 of Indi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The brief contention of the petitioner is that on the basis of complaint lodged by one Kantabai wife of Paramatma Sadepur on 11.05.2020, Indi Police have registered the case in Crime No.38/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code. It is alleged in the complaint that accused was quarreling with his wife and wife of the accused came to the house of complainant and asked her husband to give mobile phone for calling someone. Then the husband of complainant has given the mobile phone. It is further contended that on 10.05.2020 at about 10.00 accused came to the house of complainant and abused them in filthy language. Thereafter, on 10.05.2020 at about 11.00 p.m. when complainant was sleeping, suddenly complainant heard that her husband screaming for help and she went there and found that accused assaulted her husband with an axe on the right cheek. When she screamed for help the accused ran away from the spot. The injured sustained bleeding injuries. Thereafter, the complainant and other persons took the injured to Dr. Surpur Hospital at Indi. In this regard she has lodged the complaint at Indi Police Station on 11.05.2020 at about 16.30 hours and same was registered at 07.00 p.m. for the offences as stated above.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Prl. Sessions Judge has rejected the anticipatory bail petition. So, petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of an offence which is punishable exclusively either with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. There is a delay in lodging the complaint and in registering the case. It is further contended that the complainant at the instance and instigation of her employer who is not in good terms has lodged a false case in order to harass the petitioner. The complainant and others who had accompanied the injured to the Hospital have given the history as assault by unknown person. So, that itself indicates that there is possibility of falsely implicate this accused in this case. It is also stated that the accused is agriculturist and permanent resident of Indi. There are no bad antecedents. If the petitioner is arrested, then he would be put to great hardship. The petitioner is ready and willing to abide by such terms and conditions as may be imposed upon him. Accordingly, he prayed to allow the petition.