ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in these two petitions who are arrayed as accused nos.3 to 7 ad 1, 2 respectively, in Crime No.208/2013, on the file of Moodabidri Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections -279, 324, 307 read with Section -34 of I.P.C. and under Sections -27A and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959 are before this Court seeking for grant of anticipatory bail.

(2.) THE respondent -police on the complaint of one Tansir Ahammad, son of Abdul Khadar, a resident of Pranthya Village, Mangalore Taluk have registered the above case against the petitioners and have taken up investigation. It is alleged among other things on 25.09.2013, at about 1.30 p.m. the complainant after coming from Mangalore in a bus was proceeding walking towards the mosque at Moodbidri. While he was in front of Lavanya Fancy stores, an Innova Car driven by the first accused in the reverse direction rashly and negligently, dashed against the complainant and when he questioned the same with the first accused, an altercation took place and at that time, the other petitioners, who are accused nos.2 to 7 joined accused no.1 and at that the time of altercation between the complainant and accused, accused no.1 took out a fire arm which was in his possession and opened fire in the air to scare away the complainant. It is alleged that the first accused aimed at the complainant with the fire arm to finish him off. But it missed. The other accused joined the first accused in assaulting and attempting to commit a murder of the complainant.

(3.) SHRI . K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel and Shri.H.Maltesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contend that there was a clash between the two i.e., the complainant and his henchman on the one hand and the petitioners on the other hand in respect of the car of the first accused touching the complainant, while he was taking the same in the reverse direction. In the said clash, the persons from the complainants group and the petitioners group sustained injuries. They contended either the complainant or the first accused have not sustained serious injuries, which would have resulted in their death on account of assault made on them by each other. The entire occurrence has taken place at the spur of the moment, when the car touched the complainant while it was taken in the reverse direction. They further submit a small tiny incident has been blown up by both sides to make it appear that a serious offence has been committed by either of them, which was not warranted. He further submits that on the complaint of the first petitioner a case in Cr.No.207/2013 has been registered against the complainant and his henchmen for the offences under Sections -341, 323, 307 of I.P.C. read with Sections -34 and 25 of the Arms Act. He further submit that in view of the case and the counter case that has been registered and as the compliant filed by the first accused is earlier to the complaint filed by the complainant in this case and as none of them have sustained any serious injuries, the petitioners be granted the reliefs as sought for by them.