Karnataka High Court: <\/strong>H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. dismissed the petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case were that petitioner and the complainant had a quarrel with respect to the headphone. The petitioner, one night, assaulted the victim with a knife and inflicted several injuries upon him. It was the nearby public that rescued the victim from the fight and he was rushed to the hospital. The complainant received the phone call regarding the incident and rushed to the hospital and found the injured victim in ICU. The complaint was thus registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.<\/p>\n

Srinivasa C., Advocate for the petitioner submitted that complaint was an exaggerated version of the simple altercation. It was further submitted that the accused and victim were relatives and were very much interested in living in a coordinated harmony. Therefore, prayed for the grant of the bail.<\/p>\n

Divakar Maddur, High Court Government pleader argued that accused and victim were known to each other prior to the incident but the statement of the victim, who had attributed direct overt act against the petitioner as the one who stabbed him and caused several injuries with the help of the knife. It was further submitted that as the investigation was in process, the enlargement of the bail was not warranted and thus prayed for the dismissal of the present application.<\/p>\n

The High Court after submission by the parties held that statement of the victim, that too, stated to have given in the hospital in the presence of the doctor to the police officer cannot be discarded at the stage of the investigation. Moreover, the investigation is said to be in progress. As such apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the enlargement of the accused on the relief of the bail may hamper the case cannot be ignored<\/em> and hence rejected the present petition.[Mohd. Waseem v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 3215 of 2019, decided on 23-05-2019]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Karnataka High Court: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. dismissed the petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence punishable <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":109081,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2664,2583,35677,2769,35678],"class_list":["post-215114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bail","tag-Investigation","tag-police-officer","tag-relief","tag-section-34-of-penal-code-1860"],"yoast_head":"\n