Shardul vs The State Of Karnataka,

10. SAYED SADIQ, S/O SAYED KAREEM JHSHANINAVAR, AGE: ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: KHADRI GALLI, MALAPUR, DHARWAD-580008. ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SHARDULSAB M. MUNAVALLI , PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR PETITIONERS 2 TO 10)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL U/SEC.438 CR.P.C. ON THE GRANT AND REASON SETOUT AS ABOVE HAVE WOUNDED BODY OF LIFE AND VIOLATION OF LIBERTY, FREEDOM OF THE PETITIONERS WHO HAS SMALL CHILDREN'S, IF ARRESTED PETITIONERS CHILDREN WILL BE ORPHANAGED, :3:

FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.143, 147, 148, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF CR.P.C., PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL COURT AND JMFC, DHARWAD AND TO CALL FOR IN THIS CONNECTION THE FILE BEARING CR. PETITION NO.3627/2016 FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AND AD-JUDGMENT IN THIS MATTER OF ADJUDICATION AND AD-JUDGMENT AND THE LCR OF C.C. NO.736/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BE CALLED FOR NECESSARY APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LAW IN THIS CASE AND ALSO THIS HON'BLE COURT CR. PETITION NO.3627/2016 FOR REFERENCE AS TO ARRIVE AT TRUTH OR FALSE OF THE CASE INVOLVED AND ALSO THE EVENTS OF ARREST PROBLEM UNDER THE SAID C.C. NO. ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE ABOVE ON.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner is accused No.1 in C.C.No.736/2015 and is

appearing in person and on behalf of petitioners 2 to 9 who

have arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 9 in the same C.C.

number as advocate.

2. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and

the offence alleged against the petitioners are under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 IPC

which are all bailable offences.

3. It is the grievance of the 1st petitioner that if an

application is filed for grant of bail before the jurisdictional

Court it would not be considered or entertained and as :4:

such, petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court

for grant of bail.

4. In fact the provisions of Section 438 for grant of

anticipatory bail would not be applicable in case of a

bailable offence. For this proposition, judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of R.K.KRISHNA KUMAR VS.

STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS (1998 (1) SCC 474)

can be looked up. In that view of the matter, this Court is

of the view that a direction if issued to the jurisdictional

court to consider the application for bail on the same day

in the event of same being filed by petitioners, it would

suffice. It is made clear that in the event of such

application being filed by petitioners, it shall be considered

by the trial Court on same day and orders shall be passed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Jm/-