Sri Raghavendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7665/2017

BETWEEN:

Sri Raghavendra
S/o Huliyappa
Aged about 36 years
Police Constable
Tahlak Police Station
R/at Police Quarters
Thalak, Challakere Taluk
Permanent resident of
Lakshmipura Village
Chellakere Taluk
Chitradurga District-577 522. … PETITIONER

(By Sri Rajanna, Adv.)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
By Thalak Police Station
Represented by the
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
2

of his arrest in Cr. No.158/2017 of Thalak P.S., Chitradurga,
for the offence P/U/Ss 498(A), 306 read with Section 34 of
IPC.

This Criminal 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 anticipatory

bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the

petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w

Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station

Crime No.158/2017.

2. The case of the prosecution is, brother of the

deceased is the complainant in this case. He has stated

that the deceased was given in marriage to the

petitioner about 12 years back. Accused No.1 and other

family members used to give ill-treatment and
3

harassment to the deceased both physically and

mentally. Because of that reason, about 1 ½ years ago,

she came to the parental place and was staying with

them. On the date of the incident when the other

members of the family went outside, she poured

kerosene and lit fire to herself and thereby sustained

burn injuries. She was taken to the hospital.

Ultimately, she expired while on treatment. On the

basis of the said complaint, case was registered for the

alleged offences.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

4. As per the prosecution material and even

according to the complaint averments, marriage of the

deceased with the petitioner was performed about 12
4

years back and in the wedlock, children are born to the

couple. It is no doubt true that in the complaint the

brother of the deceased has mentioned that there was

ill-treatment to the deceased by the petitioner and other

family members. But there is no specific averment as to

what is the reason for such ill-treatment and

harassment. It is only stated that they used to give ill-

treatment and harassment to her. Apart from that, 1 ½

years earlier to the incident deceased had left the house

of the husband and started to reside in her parental

place. Therefore, it cannot be presumed that

immediately prior to her death she was subjected to any

such ill-treatment or harassment.

5. The petitioner has contended in the petition

that he is innocent and not involved in the alleged

offences and there is a false implication and that he is

ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be
5

imposed by this Court. The alleged offence under

Section 306 of IPC though non-bailable, but not

exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for

life. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions,

petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioner

on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w Section

34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime

No.158/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and
shall furnish one solvent surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
arresting authority.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses, directly or
indirectly.

6

iii. Petitioner shall make himself available
before the Investigating Officer for
interrogation, as and when called for
and to cooperate with the further
investigation.

iv. Petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court within 30 days from
the date of this order and to execute
the personal bond and the surety
bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp

Leave a Comment

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