HC denies bail to man who beat up neighbour’s minor son

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Beating a minor boy who was playing with his son has landed a man from Haveri in trouble. Not only has he been booked under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the High Court also denied him anticipatory bail.

Three accused, Ganesh, Nagaraj and Gangavva approached the High Court of Karnataka for bail after being booked by the Bankapura police in Haveri. A complaint was filed against them by Malakappa Kabanur, the father of Hanumanth. Hanumath, a minor boy, was injured in the incident.

During Dasara holidays, Hanumath, 12, was playing with another boy Shambuling from the village. When Malakappa got home, his wife informed him that Ganesh had beaten their son Hanumanth. While the kids were playing, a spinning top of Hanumanth is said to have hit Shambuling on his leg. Objecting to this, Shambuling’s father is said to have assaulted Hanumanth.

He is alleged to have also abused him in “filthy” language, lifted him and thrown him on the cement road causing a fracture in the right arm of the boy. Ganesh’s counsel argued in the HC that it was a trivial issue between children and there was no serious injury or use of any weapon. The two other accused in the case are brothers of Ganesh who allegedly abused Renuka, Hanumanth’s mother when she questioned Ganesh.

The HC in its judgement said that the two other accused can be granted bail as they did not have any serious allegations against them except “they only abused Smt Renuka, mother of the injured and wife of the complainant in filthy language. As no serious overt acts are levelled against the accused numbers 2 and 3, they are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.” However, the bail plea of Ganesh was rejected.

“On seeing the entire averments of the complaint, there is serious overact alleged against accused No 1. Due to the said alleged serious overt act, Hanumanth, son of the complainant has sustained a fracture in his right hand and it is a grievous injury. One of the offences alleged against the petitioner No 1/accused No 1 is provided with a punishment for imprisonment, which may extend to 10 years.

Therefore, petitioner No 1/ accused No 1 is not entitled to discretionary relief of anticipatory bail,” Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar recorded in his judgment. Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act prescribes a punishment of not less than three years and up to 10 years imprisonment and fine for ‘cruelty to a child’.