Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Mr. Vishwanatha @ Kodikere Vishwa v. State

Mr. Vishwanatha @ Kodikere Vishwa v. State

(High Court Of Karnataka)

Criminal Petition No. 2676/2014 | 27-05-2014

B. Manohar, J.The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of bail in Crime No. 56/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 21-2-2014 at about 12.00 p.m., the Sub-Inspector of Police, Surathkal Police Station registered a suo-motu complaint against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is the case of the Prosecution that at about 12.00 p.m., on the basis of the credible information received regarding attack of a person near Malemar Beach, Surathkal the Police immediately went to the spot and found that four persons were assaulting one Nissar of Kulai. Immediately, the police arrested those four persons and admitted the injured person to Padmavathi Hospital for treatment. The accused persons were taken to the custody. In the complaint, name of four persons has been mentioned as Hithesh, Guruprasad, Shivaraju and Nikhil. However, name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the complaint. The complaint clearly discloses that the petitioner was not in the spot when the incident took place at about 12.00 p.m. at Malenar Beach, Surathkal. However, a case was registered against the petitioner and he was arrested. The petitioner filed a petition seeking grant of bail before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangalore, however, the same came to be rejected. Hence, he has filed this petition u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for grant of bail.

3. Sri. P. Karunakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case though he was not involved in the incident that took place on 21-02-2014 at about 12.00 p.m. near Malenar Beach at Surathkal. Just because, the petitioner was involved in some other criminal cases, his name has been included in the alleged incident. Hence, sought for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State contended that from the year 2004, the petitioner has been involved in various criminal cases. The Investigating Officer had filed a detailed report, in which, the name of the petitioner has been included. Hence, he is not entitled for any bail.

5. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge and other relevant records.

6. The report of the Surathkal Police Officer clearly disclose that on information regarding assaulting of a boy by four persons near Malenar Beach, Surathkal, the Police went to the spot and arrested four persons who were assaulting the boy by name Nissar of Kulai village. In the report, the names of four persons who were assaulting the victim was mentioned, however, the presence of the petitioner was not mentioned. Even though the petitioner was not present on the spot, his name has been included, a case has been registered against him and he was arrested on 16.3.2014. I am of the opinion that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the said case and arraigned as accused No. 6, even though there is no mentioning of his name in the report. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

7. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court, subject to following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall make available himself for interrogation by the Police officer as and when he is required;

(ii) He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.

(iii) He shall attend the Court as and when he is directed to do so.

(iv) He shall regularly mark his attendance before the jurisdictional Police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 Noon., till the filing of the charge sheet.

Advocate List
  • For Petitioner : Karunakar P, Advocate for the Appellant; K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP, Advocate for the Respondent
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE B. MANOHAR, J
Eq Citations
  • LQ/KarHC/2014/1473
Head Note

1. Criminal Trial — Bail — False implication — Petitioner falsely implicated in the case though he was not involved in the incident — Petitioner was not present on the spot, his name was included, a case was registered against him and he was arrested — Petitioner was entitled for bail — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 439 — Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 323, 324 and 307 r/w S. 34