(1.) The complainant is the mother-in-law of the alleged victim Sri.Syed Aslam. In her complaint dated 11.03.2019, she has stated that her son-in-law i.e., Sri.Syed Aslam was an auto rickshaw driver and he had quarrel with the present petitioner - Kaleem, a week prior to the date of the complaint with respect to head-phone. In that regard, the said Kaleem had approached the house of the complainant and put life threat to the victim. That being the case, on 10.03.2019, at about 10.00 p.m., one Sri.Parvez, a friend of Sri.Syed Aslam- the victim, telephoned her informing that on the same night at about 09.30 p.m., near Banashankari bus stand, the said Kaleem (petitioner) joined by others have assaulted the Sri.Syed Aslam with a knife and inflicted several injuries upon him. However, public rescued the injured and that he shifted the injured to the hospital. The complainant rushed to the hospital and found the injured victim in the ICU. The said complaint was registered in the respondent police station in Crime No.47/2019 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the 'IPC').
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that the complaint is an exaggerated version of simple altercation. Both the accused and victim are not only friends but also relatives and are very much interested in living in a cordial harmony. He submits that the alleged incident has not occurred as depicted in the complaint. As such, the petition be considered favourably.
(3.) Learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that admittedly, the accused and victim were known to each other even prior to the incident. He also submits that the police have recorded the statement of victim, who has attributed direct overt-act against the petitioner as the one, who stabbed him and caused several injuries with the help of a knife. In that circumstance, since the investigation is also in progress, enlargement of accused on anticipatory bail is not warranted.