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/-
