Pradeep vs State By Soladevanahalli P.S on 4 December, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8595/2017

BETWEEN:

Pradeep
S/o Mahendra
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.8161, 2nd Main,
Near Eshwar Temple,
Mathikere, Bengaluru. .. Petitioner

( By Sri Gireesha J.T., Advocate )

AND

State by Soladevanahalli P.S.
Bangalore-560 096,
Represented by S.P.P.
High Court Building,
High Court-560 001. .. Respondent

( By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.275/2017, of Soladevanahalli Police Station, Bangalore,
2

for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 328 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 under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 328 of IPC,

registered in respondent – police station in Crime

No.275/2017.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the

complaint averments are that, complainant is the wife of

petitioner/accused. She filed a complaint alleging that

when she had been to her native place for the purpose of

delivery, her husband also came to her native place and on

the date of the incident, he brought the juice and gave it

to her. After consuming the said juice, within 5 to 10

minutes, she had suffered stomach pain and chest pain

and she fell down. At that time, her husband went away
3

from the said place and her brother immediately shifted

her to hospital through ambulance. Hence, it is her

contention that he made an attempt to commit her murder

by giving such juice. Based on the said complaint, case

came to be registered.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused and the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-

State, so also the order of the learned Sessions Judge,

rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record.

5. One of the ground for rejection of the bail

application by the concerned trial Court that petitioner has

not produced any material to show that his wife was

discharged from the hospital. The learned counsel for the
4

petitioner made the submission that on 16.8.2017 itself,

she was discharged from the hospital, which statement is

not disputed by the prosecution before this Court. He has

denied the allegations made in the complaint and states

that there is a false implication of the petitioner and he is

ready to abide by any of the reasonable conditions to be

imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are triable by

the Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable

with death or imprisonment for life. At present, the

condition of the complainant – wife of the petitioner, is

safe and it is out of danger. Hence, by imposing

reasonable conditions, the petitioner can be ordered to be

released on bail.

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

Petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A and 328 of IPC,

registered in Crime No.275/2017, subject to the following

conditions:

5

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond
for Rs.50,000/- and has to furnish one
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction
of the concerned Court.

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

iii. Petitioner has to appear before the
concerned Court regularly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bk/

Leave a Comment

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