MANJUNATH AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) THE petitioners are accused Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6 before the trial Court in the following circumstances: It transpires that the complainant, one Bhimappa alleged that the accused had committed offences punishable under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered as Crime No. 35/2012. It transpires that there was a quarrel between one Sangondeppa Gaddanakeri and Parasappa, accused No. 5, in respect of certain building stones and both had filed cases against each other. At that point of time, the complainant had stood surety to Gaddanakeri and his brothers, as a result of which, accused No. 5 and his brothers were upset and angry with the complainant and they had warned the complainant that they would not spare him as he stood surety for their enemies. As a result of which, on 26.2.2012, when the complainant, his wife and his son -in -law were sleeping on the terrace of their house, at about 1 a.m., the accused had descended on the complainant ™s house, armed with stones and clubs and they had assaulted the complainant and his family, who had suffered grievous injuries. The causing of particular injuries have been attributed to particular accused in the complaint. And on the cries of the complainant and his family for help, the neighbours had intervened and stopped further injuries being caused. It is on that basis that a case has been instituted against the petitioners and others.

(3.) THE learned Government Pleader, however, would oppose the petition and would submit that the petitioners having approached the Circuit Bench, Dharwad earlier, and not having prosecuted the petition, are disentitled to file the present petition. Further, the enlargement of accused No. 4 was on account of his age and not for any other special reason and, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim parity of reasoning in seeking anticipatory bail.