Mr. T K Narayan vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8612/2017

BETWEEN:

Mr. T K Narayan
Aged about 64 years
S/o Late Kempegowda
Occ: Agriculturist
R/at No.110
Thammasandra Village
Kallahalli Post
Kasaba Hobli
Kanakapura Taluk
Ramanagara District. … PETITIONER

(By Sri D N Nanjunda Reddy, Sr. Counsel for
Sri Somashekhara A N, Adv.)

AND:

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

(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in Cr. No.320/2017 of Channammanakere
Achukattu P.S., Bengaluru, for the offences P/U/Ss 427,
506, 498(A), 504, 307 and 352 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act.

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.2 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 427, 506, 498A,

504, 307 and 352 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered in

respondent police station Crime No.320/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned senior

counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and
3

also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and also the order of the

learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of

the petitioners and also other documents produced in

the case by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. As per the complaint averments, father of one

Neeraja filed the complaint alleging that at the time of

marriage and engagement of his daughter he has paid

Rs.3,00,000/- cash and 400 gms. of gold ornaments,

watch and finger ring. After the marriage, Dr.Bharath

Kumar and his father T.K.Narayan, the petitioner

herein were giving ill-treatment and harassment to his

daughter. It is further alleged that Dr.Bharath Kumar

after the marriage took his daughter to America. Even
4

there also he was insisting her for the money and giving

ill-treatment and in that regard, the complainant has

credited the amount to the account of accused No.1. It

is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner

and accused No.1 abused the daughter of the

complainant in filthy language and have thrown her

belongings out of house and have also made an attempt

to commit the murder of daughter of the complainant.

On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered.

5. Even as per the prosecution case there are no

injuries. The daughter of the complainant has not

taken any treatment in the hospital. Though in the

complaint there is allegation that accused persons made

an attempt to commit murder of the daughter of the

complainant, the said allegation is denied by the

petitioner-accused No.2, the father-in-law of the

daughter of the complainant.

5

6. Petitioner has contended that false allegations

are made against him and he is ready to abide by any

reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. He

is aged about 64 years, as mentioned in the cause title

of the petition, which fact is not disputed by the

prosecution. Apart from that, the alleged offences are

not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be

granted with anticipatory bail.

7. 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 427, 506, 498A, 504, 307

and 352 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 registered in respondent

police station Crime No.320/2017, subject to the

following conditions:

6

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and
shall furnish one 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.

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 *