JAGANATHA S/O. DODDAERAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA HIRIYUR RURAL POLICE STATION CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No. 2 in Crime No. 28/2012 of Hiriyur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 323, 324 and 504 r/w 149 of IPC, has sought for grant of anticipatory bail. It is the case of the prosecution that on 29.01.2012 at about 7.00 p.m. this accused along with five others, which included his wife entered into the shop of the complainant Sarojamma, picked up quarrel with her and her son Manjunatha in connection with drawing power to the shop owned by her, assaulted her son with stones, wooden reapers, chopper and also sprinkled chilly powder on them.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that this petitioner along with five others in this very case had approached the learned Sessions Judge under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the applications of the other accused, who had preferred petitions along with him, but dismissed his application on the ground that he had inflicted injury to the victim Manjunath with a chopper on his head. He further submitted that at the time the application filed for grant of anticipatory bail was heard by the learned Sessions Judge, the victim was undergoing treatment. As on the date, he has been discharged from the hospital. He further submitted that the wife of the accused, who has now been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge, has filed complaint against the complainant and his son in this very case alleging that they had criminally intimated them and had threatened her with dire consequences in connection with drawing of power to their respective tea shops situated adjacent to each other. On account of the counter case that has been filed, the present petitioner has been falsely involved in the case. He hails from a respectable family having deep roots in the society and taking into consideration that the other accused have already been granted anticipatory bail, he be also granted relief of anticipatory bail.

(3.) THE material on record reveals that the occurrence has taken place due to the differences that existed on account of the complainant and her son on the one hand and the accused and their henchmen on the other hand drawing power to their respective tea shops. In the altercation, it is alleged that this petitioner has assaulted the victim Manjunatha with a chopper on his head. It is brought to the notice of the Court that the victim as on today has been discharged from the hospital. The wife of the accused has also filed complaint against the complainant and his son on the basis which a counter case is registered by the police in Crime No. 29/12 for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. That goes to show that the occurrence has taken place at the spur of the movement and case and counter case has been registered. In view of the fact that the other accused in this very case have been already granted anticipatory bail and regular bail and taking into consideration the background in which the occurrence has taken place, I do not find any justification to decline the request of this petitioner also. In the result for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: -