Swamy M S vs State Of Karnataka on 2 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8057/2017

BETWEEN:

Swamy M.S.
S/o Savandaiah,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at #19, S-2,
2nd Floor, Kasturi Apartments,
Krumbigal Road, Mavalli,
Bengaluru – 560 004.
…Petitioner

(By Sri. , Adv.)

AND:

State of Karnataka,
By Station Officer,
Kalasipalya Police Station,
Bengaluru – 560 002.
Represented by Learned SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
….Respondent

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.160/2017 of Kalasipalya
2

Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 498A,
306 R/W 34 of IPC.

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

ORDER

This is the petition 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 alleged

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 R/W

34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station,

Crime No.160/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner/accused No.1 also the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

3. Learned counsel made the submission that

similar allegations are made against accused No.2.

Accused No.2 has already granted bail. It is also his

submission that whatever the allegations are made are
3

false allegations. He never gave ill-treatment and

harassment to the deceased nor he was having any such

illicit connection with one Kavya – accused No.2. Hence,

learned counsel made the submission that by imposing

reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to

anticipatory bail. The petitioner is ready to co-operate

the investigation agency.

4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader made the submission that looking to the

prosecution materials so also the complaint averments,

prima facie makes out the case against the present

petitioner that it is he who abetted the deceased to

commit suicide and he used to give ill-treatment and

harassment both physically and mentally.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader also

made the submission that matter is still under

investigation and petitioner is not entitled to grant of

anticipatory bail.

4

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in

the case.

7. The allegation of the prosecution is that the

present petitioner developed illicit connection with one

Kavya – accused No.2 and in that connection, there used

to be quarrel between the deceased and present

petitioner. It is mentioned in the complaint that

whatever the deceased questioned the present petitioner,

he was challenging her asking her what she can do when

the husband of Kavya himself is silent about the same.

The materials goes to show that on earlier occasion also,

deceased filed complaint before the Basavanagudi

Women Police Station which was in NCR No.307/2017.

It also goes to show that prima facie Panchayat was held

and the petitioner was advised not to do like that and

even then he continued the same. The alleged incident

took place in the house of the present petitioner and he
5

is the person who has to account for the same. The

matter is still under investigation.

8. Therefore, looking to the materials placed by the

prosecution, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case

for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MH/-

Leave a Comment

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