IN TFIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHAR WAD DATED THIS THE 22 DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMiNAL PETITON No.10191/2011 BIiTWEEN: Sbivappa, S/o. Rudrappa Kamati, Age: 40 years, 0cc: Agriculture. Rio. Prubhu Nagar. Honnapur. Tq. and Dist. Dharwad. . . . Petitioner (By Shri. Anil Kale. Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka, Represented by S.P.P. Circuit Bench, Dharwad. .. . Respondent (By Shri. Anand Kurnar Navalgirnath, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to grant anticipator. bail to the petitioner in the event of his arrest by Dharwad Rural P.S. in Crime No.0920 1 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 307. 504 read with Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code. This petition coming on for orders this day. the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. It is alleged that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner and brother of the complainant, in respect of four feet space between their properties. It is alleged that the petitioner had picked up a quarrel with the brother of the complainant and assaulted him with an axe on the head of the brother of the complainant and also on his thigh, when the complainant and his brother were standing in front of their house. It is on the basis of the said allegation that proceedings have been initiated against the present petitioner. The petitioner had thereafter moved the Court below seeking anticipatory bail the same has been rejected while the Court has taken note of the contention that the statements of several witnesses is entirely contradictory especially the statement of the complainant and the injured and therefore sought grant of anticipatory bail. The Court while taking note of the contradictions, has opined that it is not possible to conduct a mini trial the inconsistent 3 statements notwithstanding and has refi.ised to grant anticipatory bail. This was in the face of the circumstance, that investigation was on and that it would impede the investigation and hamper the prosecution agency in the process and therefore has rejected the bail application. It is in this background, that the petitioner is befofe this Court. 3. The learned counsel would reiterate the contentions putforth before the trial Court to submit that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner, in the light of complete inconsistencies of the several persons whose statements have been recorded and therefore, would seek grant of anticipatory bail. The petitioner not having offered himself for interrogation, is a circumstance which would not enable the petitioner in seeking anticipatory bail, notwithstanding that the offence though non-bailable, was not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation of the Investigation Officer which cannot be denied and when the weapon is yet to be recovered. It is possible that the petitioner might put himselfout ofthe reach of S 4 the law, if he is granted anticipatory bail at this point of time. Accordingly, the petition is rejected. Sd! 3UDGE Rsh