High Court of Karnataka Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused in Attempt to Murder Case — Prima Facie Case Not Made Out. Court finds that the allegations under Sections 307, 354, 324, 341, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC do not disclose a clear intention to cause death or sufficient evidence of grave assault.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 51
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, three individuals, filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.87/2020 registered at Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 354 (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 307 (attempt to murder), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The incident allegedly occurred on 19.05.2020 between 4.30 p.m. and 5.00 p.m. in front of site No.133, 38th Main, Rose Garden, Jaraganahalli, J.P.Nagar, 6th Phase, Bengaluru. The complaint was lodged on the same day at 9.25 p.m. The petitioners, represented by counsel Sri K.N. Narayanaswami, argued that they were innocent and that the allegations were false. The respondent-State, represented by HCGP Sri K. Nageshwarappa, opposed the bail application. The court, after perusing the FIR, observed that the allegations did not prima facie establish an intention to cause death or a grave assault warranting denial of bail. The court noted that the nature of injuries and the circumstances did not clearly indicate an attempt to murder. Consequently, the court allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions including executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety, cooperating with investigation, appearing before the police as required, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving the jurisdiction without court permission.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The court considered the application for anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 341, 354, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. The court examined the FIR and the nature of allegations to determine if a prima facie case for grave offences like attempt to murder was made out. Held that the allegations did not clearly indicate an intention to cause death or sufficient evidence of a serious assault, thus granting anticipatory bail (Paras 3-5).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for offences including attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.87/2020 of Puttenahalli Police Station, subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation, appear before the police as and when required, not tamper with evidence, and not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail
  • Section 438 CrPC
  • Prima facie case
  • Attempt to murder
  • Section 307 IPC
  • Nature of injuries
  • Discretion of court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 150

Criminal Petition No.2958/2020

2020-07-01

N.K. Sudhindrarao

K.N. Narayanaswami (for petitioners), K. Nageshwarappa (HCGP for respondent)

Sri. Jagadisha.N., Sri. Bharath.N., Sharath Kumar.N.

State of Karnataka

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought enlargement on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.87/2020.

Filing Reason

Petitioners apprehended arrest in connection with offences under Sections 341, 354, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for offences including attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners' counsel argued that the allegations are false and the petitioners are innocent. Respondent's HCGP opposed the bail application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that on perusal of the FIR, the allegations do not prima facie make out a case for grave offences like attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Judgment Excerpts

On perusal of the First Information Report, it is seen that the complaint was lodged on 19.05.2020 at about 9.25 p.m.. The date of incident is stated to be on 19.05.2020 between 4.30 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. The allegations do not prima facie make out a case for grave offences like attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed Criminal Petition No.2958/2020 under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.87/2020 of Puttenahalli Police Station. The matter was heard through video conference on 01.07.2020 and the court allowed the petition.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 438
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 341, 354, 324, 307, 504, 506, 34
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Reference to Arbitration in Development Dispute. Presence of Non-Signatory CIDCO Does Not Bar Arbitration Under Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 When No Claim Is Made Against It.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Employer's Appeal in Part in Workmen's Compensation Case — Injury During Employment Upheld. Truck helper's injury while unloading marbles from employer's truck held to arise out of and in the course of employment under Sect...