1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2220 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DYAVAPPA
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
2. SRI MANJUNATHA
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
3. SRI VENKATAREDDY
S/O RAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
4. SRI SRIKANTHA
S/O DYAVAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT BUDAGAVARHALLI VILLAGE,
SADALI HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562105 … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVCOATE
FOR SRI: S Y KUMBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DIBBURAHALLI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560001. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR
ARREST IN CRIME NO.7/2018 OF DIBBURAHALLI POLICE
STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 120B, 498A,
323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Petitioners are shown as accused Nos.2 to 5 in Crime
No.07/2018 registered under sections 143, 147, 148, 120B,
498A, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 read with section 149 of Indian
Penal Code.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned HCGP.
3. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of
objections, but has orally opposed the petition.
3
4. The complainant is the wife of accused No.1. The
material allegations made in the complaint are that on
23.01.2018, at 8.00 a.m., when the complainant had gone to
attend nature’s call, accused No.1 followed her and held her
mouth and dragged her to the forest area. Further it is alleged
that the brothers of accused No.1 namely petitioners 1 to 3
(accused No.2 to 4) and petitioner No.4 (accused No.5) held the
complainant and accused No.1 assaulted the complainant with a
knife on her neck and thighs and also kicked her on the chest.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
accused No.1 against whom there are serious allegations of
assault, is enlarged on bail by the trial court. However, the
application moved by the petitioners has been rejected solely on
the ground that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the
petitioners as the allegations made against them are serious in
nature.
6. A reading of the complaint indicates that the assault
was made only by accused No.1. The allegation against the
present petitioners is that all of them held the victim to facilitate
accused No.1 to assault her. Therefore, considering the nature
4
of the allegations made against the petitioners, in my view, the
petitioners could be admitted to anticipatory bail as their
custodial interrogation is not necessary.
7. Hence, the following order:-
Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioners are directed
to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from
the date of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating
Officer shall interrogate the petitioners and shall enlarge them
on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-
a. The petitioners shall furnish a bond in a sum
of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) each
with one surety each for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;
b. The petitioners shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when required;
c. The petitioners shall cooperate in the
investigation;
d. The petitioners shall not threaten or allure the
prosecution witnesses; and
5e. The petitioners shall mark their attendance in
Dibburahalli Police Station, Chickballapura
th
district, on the 30 of every month until
submission of the charge-sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss