SIDDRAMAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of petitioner's counsel and the HCGP for respondent.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 16.3.2016, at around 6.00 a.m., when the complainant went to attend nature call , at that time this petitioner and other accused came and started abusing in a filthy language and other accused started assaulting the complainant with footwear and the al legation that this petitioner has assaulted with his hands on his back, slapped him and also kicked on his waist and when he fell down, his son came and pacified the galata and they also caused life threat. Based on the complaint, police have registered the case.

(3.) The petitioner in the bail petition has contended that at the first instance the name of the petitioner has not been mentioned and only the name of one Muttappa was mentioned and now it is the case of the prosecution that this petitioner and the said alleged Muttappa are one and the same and there is an apprehension of arrest and hence he approached this Court. The petitioner already approached the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court rejected the bail application and in this petition it is the contention that he is an innocent person and he has not committed any of fence as alleged in the charge sheet and there is no any reference of overtact or al legations against this petitioner. There is no any bona fides in the al legations, particularly when the complainant has not referred the name of the petitioner either in the complaint or in the further statement. It is further contended that except the surname, name and father's name differs from the name of the accused No.1 shown in the charge sheet and the petitioner is not the same persons as shown in the complaint and the charge sheet and the respondent cannot contend that accused No.1 mentioned in the FIR and the very petitioner are one and the same. It is further contended that none of the witnesses statement has been recorded during the investigation stating that accused No.1 named in the complaint refers to the petitioner. It is only the police who have tried to involve the petitioner and hence prayed this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail .