Sri Gautam Saraf vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4070/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Gautam Saraf
Son of Sri. Kishan Lal Saraf,
Aged about 32 years.

2. Sri. Kishan Lal Saraf,
Son of Sri. Sitaram Saraf,
Aged about 61 years.

3. Sri. Nikunj Saraf,
Son of Sri. Kishan Lal Saraf,
Aged about 28 years.

4. Sri. Shriram Saraf,
Son of Kishan Lal Saraf,
Aged about 25 years.

All the petitioners are residing
at A-301, Andromeda Block,
Brigade Gateway,
Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Malleshwaram West,
Bangalore -560 055. …Petitioners

(By Sri. Santhosh S. Gogi, Advocate)

AND:
The State of Karnataka
by Commissioner of Police,
Infantry Road,
Bangalore -560 001.
2

2. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the State House Officer,
Navghar Police Station,
Bhayander (E), Thane -401 105.
(Maharashtra State),
By State Public Prosecutor.
…Respondents
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in crime No.334/2016 of Navghar
Police Station, Bhayander (E), Thane, Maharashtra for
the offences p/u/s. 498(A), 354, 377, 323, 504, 506 r/w
34 of
IPC.
This Criminal Petition is coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Learned HCGP takes notice for the respondent.

2. This is the second petition of this nature

before this Court by the petitioners pertaining to Crime

No.334/2016 registered by respondent-police in respect

of the offences punishable under sections 498A, 406,

READ  Gurucharan Kumar & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 January, 2003

354, 377, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. In fact,

previous petition Crl. P. No.824/2017 is allowed by

order of this Court dated 25.01.2017 granting

anticipatory bail for a limited period of three weeks,
3

within which the petitioners were directed to appear

before the concerned court and move for regular bail.

3. Sri. Santosh S. Gogi, learned counsel for the

petitioners submits that because of the serious skin

problem suffered by the second petitioner, the entire

family was unable to appear before the concerned court

within the time granted by this Court in

Crl.P.No. 824/2017. If anticipatory bail is granted for

eight weeks the petitioners will appear before the

concerned court and participate in the proceedings. In

fact they have already offered to settle the dispute with

Smt. Priyanka Mittal, the complainant.

4. Learned HCGP for the State opposes the

petition stating that no valid ground is shown by these

petitioners to move the second petition without availing

the remedy granted to them in earlier petition.

5. However, in the interest of justice it is felt,

since it is a matrimonial dispute, untenably all the

members of the family of petitioners can be
4

accommodated to surrender before the concerned court

within three weeks.

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and

petitioners are granted anticipatory bail for a period of

three weeks in Cr. No. 334/2016 registered by the

respondent/Police. Within the above period they shall

surrender before the concerned Court and move for

regular bail. Till disposal of regular bail petition, this

READ  Bashir And Others vs State Of Haryana on 3 October, 1977

order shall be in force. In the event of their arrest, in

respect of the above case by the Respondent-Police

within the above period, they shall be released on bail

on executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating

Officer.

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.

No. 1/17 does not survive for consideration and the

same stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE
BVK

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *