IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8’FEI DAY OF APRIL, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRLP.N0.103 76/2011 Between: I. Balappa Mallappa Kattimani, Age 50years, 0cc.: Driver, 2. Shekhappa Mallappa Kattimani, Age 45 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, 3. Siddappa Mallappa Kattimani, Age 43 years, 0cc.: Driver, 4. ishappa Basappa Kattimani, Age 35 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, 5. Mahantesh Shekhappa Kattimani, Age 2 1 years, 0cc.: Agriculture, All are R/o. Kalakapur, Tq.: Ron, District Gadag. Petitioners (By Sri. B .V. Somapur, Advocate) And: The State of Karnataka. By Naregal Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. Respondent (By Sri.Vinayak Kulkarni, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking that the anticipatory bail be granted to the -2- petitioners and the Naregal Police be directed to release the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in Naregal P.S. crime No.12/2011 u/S.143, 147, 323, 342, 307, 504 r/w. 149 of IPC and pending on the file of the JMFC Court, Ron This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard both sides in respect of the anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners. 2. The petitioners are the accused persons of having coming the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 342, 307, 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC. 3. The case of the complainants in short is that, these accused persons have assaulted Mabusab and Rudravva and they tried to kill Rudravva by tying her neck with a rope and apart from that they also assaulted the said persons on the ground of the complainant’s brother is said to have illicit intimacy with Rudravva, which Rudravva was close relative of accused persons. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ submitted that, 1st petitioner is working as driver in NWKRTC and in the event of anticipatory bail being rejected. It would take considerable time for the petitioner to get bail from the trial Court and in that event he may also loose his job and therefore the 1 st petitioner at least be granted anticipatory bail. 5. Having thus heard petitioners’ counsel and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, though this court had not inclined to grant anticipatory bail, vet only one factor that is in favour of the 1St petitioner he may likely to loose his job according to the petitioners’ counsel, if he is in custody for more than 48 hours and therefore except 1’ petitioner rest of the petitioner can move the application for regular bail before the trial court. Hence. I pass the following order: ORDER Appeal is rejected in respect of the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 and 1 St petitioner is released on bail subject to the following conditions. -4- i) In the event of arrest of l petitioner in connection with Crime No.12/2011, he shall be released on bail subject to furnishing personal bond for 25,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting police officer. ii) He shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not give threat to the witnesses. iii) He shall appear before the investigating officer as and when he is called upon to do so and he shall assist the investigating officer in the investigation. iv) He shall mark his attendance before the concerned Police Station, on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m and 5.00 p.m. and also he shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing in future. Sd! JUDGE