Sri. Thippeswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9239/2017

BETWEEN:

Sri Thippeswamy
S/o Late Anjinappa
Aged about 28 years
R/at Lingadahalli Village
Pavagada Taluk
Tumkur District-561 202.
Karnataka. .. PETITIONER

(By Sri Krishna Kishore N, Adv.)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
By the Arasikere Police Station
Bangalore
Represented by their
State Public Prosecutor
High Court Complex
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT

(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under Section under
Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.No.52/2016 (C.C.No.330/2017) of Arasikere P.S.,
Tumkuru District for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 504, 323, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2

This 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 a direction to the

respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be

released on bail for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 504, 323, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC

registered in respondent Police Station Crime

No.52/2016.

2. Earlier, the case came to be registered in

Challakere police station in Crime No.37/2015 on

13.2.2015 and subsequently, on the point of jurisdiction,

the same came to be transferred to respondent-Arasikere

police station.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drawing the

attention of this Court to the contents of the complaint

and the other materials made submission that there are

no allegations to attract the offence under Section 306 of

IPC as against the petitioner herein. The learned Counsel

submitted that the materials clearly show that the

deceased had been to her sister’s house and the incident

took place in the house of sister of the deceased. False

allegations are made against the petitioner and other

accused that they were giving the ill treatment and

harassment to the deceased. The learned Counsel

submitted that after registering complaint in Crime

No.52/2016 of Arasikere police station, the police called

the petitioner to police station and because of that reason,

the petitioner has the apprehension of his arrest.

Investigation of the case is completed and the charge

sheet has been filed. Therefore, by imposing reasonable

conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
4

5. Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the petition

contending that looking to the allegations made in the

complaint and as said to have been narrated by the

deceased before her sister i.e., the complainant herein,

the petitioner along with another accused was abusing

the deceased in filthy language stating that she does not

how to prepare food. They have been suspecting her

fidelity and saying that she is having extra marital

relationship. Because of these abusive words, the

deceased committed suicide. Hence, submitted that

petitioner-accused No.1, against whom the allegations are

made, is not entitled for bail.

6. Looking to the materials collected during

investigation, prima facie, they indicate that the deceased

was subjected to ill treatment and harassment because

the petitioner herein along with the other accused was

suspecting her fidelity and even there was accusation that

she was having extra marital relationship. Because of the

abusive words, the deceased got disappointed and took

extreme steps of putting her life to an end. The said
5

materials are also available from the statement of the

witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has placed prima

facie material as against the petitioner that he along with

the other accused has abetted the commission of the

offence by the deceased. Therefore, it is not a fit case to

exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner herein. The

petition is accordingly dismissed.

7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner

made submission that the petitioner is prepared to

surrender before the concerned Court. In case the

petitioner voluntarily surrenders and makes an

application, the concerned Court shall consider the

application on priority basis, in accordance with law and

dispose of the same, if possible, on the same day.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs/-

Ct-SG/-

Leave a Comment

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