Karnataka High Court Mr Ramandeep Mata vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2011Author: H.Billappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANCALQRE DATED THIS THE 16m DAY OF DECEMBER 2o.r_I<I§ BEFORE
THE I-ION’BLE MR. JUSTIQE”H.–BIL§L.Ai§PEI4 CRIMINAL PETITION
CRIMINAL PETITIoNEAN’oI4972/,2o-1Iv, IN CRL.P.No.497 1/201 1
BETWEEN:
Mr.Ramandeep _ g
S/o.Harjinder Si-ngh _
Age 33 years, I _ . :
R/at.No.95/7.,Civii’I;ines,.._4″ ” Jhansi, Uttar Prad’€:sh.:V’:I'” . Petitioner (By Sri.R.L.P’ati’i for ‘&=’Pati1, Adv.) AND:
:’V’S_tate. of”K.ai”nata1;a, “”” By Station’Hou_’se”‘in Charge Inspector, Korama_nga1a–« Station,
‘vi’ _ . , Koran; aiigala,’ * . f_ . B_anga1″c-re. ‘ ~. …Respondent _, , ‘%] 1 Sri. P. iiarunakar, HCGP) **=l<***
.’ V’;This Cr1.P is filed U/S438 Cr.P.C by the Advocate for ‘ “t.he”petitioner praying that this I-Ion’b1e Court may be pleased 2
to grant Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest FIR No.368/11 of Koramangala P.S., Bangalore offence P/U/S 498-A, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and D.P. Act.
IN CRL.P.No.4972/20 1 1
BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Harjinder Singh Mata,
S / o.Sri Kartar Singh,
Aged 70 years, _ ._ 1
Retired Deputy Manager,?.
State Bank OfI1:dia,J1’1avnsfi, Up, ” Smt.Jogind.et’-»VKa§jd_r:_Mata; S W / o.Harjinde.r”Singh. M;i.;ta;’ Aged 6_1_y.€_a”r.s”.’ . V’ S’ « Ex)
Both are R/ ‘Lines,
J hansi,’ Uttar Pr__a’d.esh’ –~ ” ” a . . . Petitioners (By Sri.R;.L.1?Aati’1u”for M .;”s.I.3ati1: & Patil, Adv.) State A of “
‘ S’ Station Hotfii’se5’In«Charge/ _ Inspector, Koiainangala Police Station, _ . _ Korarnangala,
” ” Bangalore.” …Respondent
(‘sy ‘Sri;PiKarunakar, HCGP)
lg.
This Cr1.P is filed U/s.488 Cr.P.C by the Advocate for the petitioners praying that this Hon’b1e Court pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail, in the event of :their. in FIR No.368/ 11 of Koramangala P.S., Bangai’ore.C.ity:d _ the offence P/U/S 498–A, 324, 504, soeef we see;e,se;4 ” of DP. Act.
These Cr1.Ps. are coming’ the”. Court made the following: .
OT{_DE?’vh” ‘ T
The petitioners. have.-fiiedietrviesee under Section 438 of Cr.P.C prayingforgiraiitiVtofiiinticipatory Bail.
2. pnetitivons, the petitioners are 1aw–abidingigit–izer1sV.andTthe-ailegations do not indicate any offence punderauSe_ction of IPC and the petitioners are 1-fqgeadyg abide’ by ivvailiiévconditions that may be imposed. Vi’.c~,petitioners have prayed for grant of A:nticip«atory’BTAai1T.
It is alleged, the marriage between the . v-fj=.___’c’omp1ainant and the petitioner in Cr1.P.No.4971/2011 was solemnized on l7/18.01.2009 at
%.25,oo,ooo/- and giving jewellery, c1,§th§:§’¢tc_, -<1; ,j:s–a11¢’ggdf;« the petitioners were not happy with tliefllgifts B’ At. time of marriage, complainant’sf”i.husband’-gRanian was employed with the Accenture “ll/lidyshree Tech Park, White Field, Bangalore — 560 006 and postedfo vveoifnplajnant went to Chicago along is glleged, in Chicago Raman’s b.elia’Zio’L1r “rude a’nd.<‘he used to taunt the Complainant. ._ –Rarnan was transferred to Bangalore and Phoenix, US, on a new assignmegnt. The ‘-Qorriplainant went to Phoenix with Raman and lshellwans itortured there.
On June 2010, Raman was transferred to ‘lta._,.Banga1ore,. and the complainant returned to Bangalore with A’ It–is alleged, Raman demanded ?.3,00,000/~ to rent an If and purchase furniture. The complainant informed T he’r”‘father and 12,00,000/– was sent and furniture and (X,
5
necessary house hold articles were purchased. It is stated, flat No.G.F.2, Alpine Court Apartment, 71″ B Kormangala 3rd Block, Bangalore, was taken on–,4′:rent,:’ receiving ?.2,00,000/- Raman de’mande7d complainant refused, Raman alpausedflth-e_l filthy language. Thereafter, her’ father to send the money car. filler father sent a cheque for ?’.4,25,00f3 amount of $40,000/– was of the
complainant. the name of the complainant,lllll “€50,000/– was deposited into the accoulntof’ for maintenance charges. During R-aksha ..Bandan festival Raman’s sister Visited “Ori Santro car, she taunted the insulted the complainant saying why wllonly ?.5’0,0Q’O/alwas asked from her father and assaulted her. “tl)ti,r1ng,”September 2010, when complainants parents~in–law yiasited”Blangalore, complainant complained to them about ~Rainan’s behaviour. They took Raman’s side. It is alleged, 1/
there. On 11.7.2011, the complainant’s_ Bangalore and on 12.7.2011, he
and found that Raman had vacated the house When complainant called her paren_ts–in:»l;a’w,qthe’3? and told her to forget Raman. cloiilplaintvfghas been lodged and a case in I of horamangala Police Station, Bangalore, the offences punishable under 506 of IPC and Sections 3 andiléjlu V S
5. for the petitioners contended that the petitioners’ “innocent of the offences alleged againstjghleria and have been falsely implicated in the case thAe»A.al1uegations do not attract Sections 498A and 324 of :'”also.:;'”submitted that the petitioner in Crl.P. lJ’o.497fl”,/26:11′ a Software Engineer and the petitioners are for investigation and therefore, the petitioners can anticipatory bail.
11/
6. As against this, the learned .lP1ead”erll submitted that the investigation petitioners are required for __”‘investi’gationl’ a«s’~-..se’rious.’ allegations have been made and__lithei=enfore’,l “the petitioners cannot be granted antieipa’toi’yAliailgp’ 1′
7. I have ~vCa1je’,Full3:t__ –the:VVfsubmissions made by the learned ?:o11:ns:e’l’ V
8. he -poi0i’it”th’at ariusve.S’for my Consideration is; Whietfterl pie-tilttoners can be granted , — –anticij9a;to’iyi” bdil?
is relei/aritto note, the allegations are that the nisirriage between the petitioner in Crl.P.No.497 1 / 201 1 and V the solemnized on 17/ 18.01.2009 at Jhansi and a ?”:25,00.000/– was spent for the marriage and “fiiialiiable articles were given. It is alleged, the petitioner in Cril_.P,.No”.~497l/201l demanded Car, money etc., and “ll.’jg~vi__assa1VJ;,lted the complainant. The petitioners contend, the ‘parents-in~law of the complainant lodged the complaint on L/
13.7.2011 and as a counter blast, the complainant has the complaint. The offences alleged are not death or life imprisonment. The complaint ljias”” subsequent to the complaint lodged’1«pby:._l_ltl’le The petitioner in Crl.P.No.4971/2:Olp_1 isha The petitioners in Crl.P.No__.4972.1_ are age’d–.abQ,ut 70 and 9 years respectively. ‘T1162petltivonersolare available for investigation. TherefOre;.’Wthe~ petifioriers. lean be granted antici ato bail”s”t1b*3e.c’;t to..c.e1’tairi.”conditions.
10. the~«l.._peti_tions are allowed and the petitioners fare ppgra_ntedlV’ariticipatory bail subject to the following Conditions; – A V
£111 ._thellll”e’vent of their arrest in of Koramangala Police
petitioners shall be released
.¢n~bai1 on their executing a bond for a if of €50,000/~ each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
nu
iv)
igiivsk/-“*
10
The petitioners shall appear before the 1.0. within one week from today and shall co–operate with the I.O. for inVestigation..’u’~…’._: as and when required.
The petitioners shall not .’
witnesses.
If the petitioners Violette .;:tI}y”€.Qndi’tiO*r.L_ the respondent–Sta’te.7 _ ‘-_ca{r11 for cancellation of the i ii