Mohan vs State Of Karnataka on 24 October, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6324/2017

BETWEEN:

Mohan
S/o Muthappa
Aged 36 years
Occupation: Business
R/at Nagegowda Badavane
Kushalanagar
Somwarpet Taluk
Kodagu District-571 234. .. PETITIONER

(By Sri B O Chandrashekar, Adv.)

AND:

State of Karnataka
by Kushalanagar Police
Kodagu District

Represented by the
Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT

(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under Section under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.57/2017 of Kushalnagar P.S., Kodagu District for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 315, 504,
2

506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of D.P.
Act.

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following :

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the

respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be

released on bail for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 315, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC

and Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act registered in respondent

Police Station Crime No.57/2017.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner,

during the course of the arguments, made submission

that looking to the prosecution material, earlier there was

a complaint dated 2.7.2017, as per Annexure-F, wherein
3

it was stated that there was difference of opinion between

the complainant and her husband and therefore, she

asked the police to advise her husband. Eleven days

thereafter, the present complaint as per Annexure-A came

to be filed making all these false allegations. It is also the

submission of the learned Counsel that the other accused

persons were already granted bail. Hence, by imposing

reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to

bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the

course of the arguments, made submission that the

material goes to show that, at the time of marriage,

Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the petitioner as dowry and

being not satisfied with the same, he started giving ill

treatment both physically and mentally to his wife

(complainant). Serious allegations are made against the

petitioner-accused No.1. He is required for recording of

further evidence/custodial interrogation. Therefore, grant
4

of bail to other accused persons is not helpful. Hence,

petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have perused the averments made in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on

record. I have also perused the order passed by the

learned Sessions Judge on the bail application.

6. Looking to the complaint averments, it is no

doubt true that as per the complaint dated 2.7.2017, it

was only mentioned that there was difference of opinion

between the couple and police were requested to advise

the petitioner. But looking to the subsequent complaint

produced as per Annexure-B, there are allegations made

against the petitioner-accused No.1 that Rs.5,00,000/-

was given as dowry. But, even then, he started giving

mental and physical torture to the complainant. The

complaint averments goes to show that even there was

termination of pregnancy because of harassment and ill

treatment by the petitioner.

5

7. Looking to the complaint averments, there are

serious allegations against the petitioner-accused No.1

about the ill treatment and harassment met out to the

wife (complainant). The grant of bail to the other accused

will not help the petitioner in view of the serious

allegations made against him. Looking to the materials

placed on record, custodial interrogation of accused No.1

is required in this case. Therefore, it is not the case for

grant of bail.

Petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs/-

Leave a Comment

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