Sri. Suresh Babu Vadugu S/O … vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 April, 2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

Dated this the 12th day of April 2017

Before

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100597/2017

BETWEEN:

1. SRI SURESH BABU VADUGU
S/O VENKATESHWARA RAO
AGE: 33 YRS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER
R/O:H.NO.20-5-9 NARASARAO PET
DIST:GUNTUR, STATE: ANDRAPRADESH

2. SMT.LAKSHMI W/O VENKATESHWARA RAO
AGE: 68 YRS, OCC: SINECURE
R/O: H.NO. 20-5-9 NARASARAO PET
DIST:GUNTUR, STATE:ANDRAPRADESH

3. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA, W/O S SHESHAGIRI
AGE: 40 YRS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O: H.NO. 20-5-12, ILA BAZAR,
NARASARAO PET, DIST: GUNTUR
STATE: ANDRAPRADESH

4. SRI SHAGIRI, S/O RAMACHANDRA RAO
AGE: 45 YRS, R/O H.NO.20-5-12
ILA BAZAR, NARASARAO PET
DIST: GUNTUR, STATE ANDRAPRADESH

5. SMT.VEERA NAGENDRAMMA
W/O SRINIVAS, AGE: 35 YRS, OCC:
R/O: H.NO. 20-5-31,
:2:

ILA BAZAR, NARASARAO PET
DIST: GUNTUR
STATE: ANDRAPRADESH

6. SRI SRINIVAS, S/O GOVINDU
AGE: 38 YRS, R/O:H.NO. 20-5-12,
ILA BAZAR, NARASARAO PET
DIST: GUNTUR
STATE: ANDRAPRADESH

7. SRI RAJUPRASAD,
S/O SATHYANARAYANA
AGE:55 YRS, R/O:H.NO.29-166,
SHIVAPARVATHI NAGAR,
YANAMADA KUDHURU,
DIST: VIJAYAWADA,
STATE: ANDRAPRADESH.

8. SWAPNA, D/O RAMPRASAD
AGE:26 YRS, R/O:H.NO. 29-166
SHIVAPARVATHI NAGAR
YANAMADA KUDHURU
DIST: VIJAYAWADA
STATE:ANDRAPRADESH. …PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VIJAY M. MALALI, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH CPI,
RURAL POLICE STATION,
HOSAPETE CIRLCE, BALLARY DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP,
SPP OFFICE, BENCH AT DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
:3:

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS
ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN HOSPETE RURAL P.S.CRIME
NO.190 OF 2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504, 307 READ WITH SECTION 149
OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT, 1961.

READ  K N Sridhar vs State Of Karnataka on 14 June, 2017

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is the petition filed by petitioners-accused under

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail, to

direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on

bail in the event of their arrest, of the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 307 read with

Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 registered in respondent-police

station Crime No.190/2016.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per

complaint averments are that, the injured herself lodged

the complaint against the petitioners herein alleging that

complainant and petitioner No.1 are couple and their
:4:

marriage was solemnized on 01.08.2012. Petitioner Nos.2

to 8 are the family members of petitioner No.1. Mother of

the complainant gave rupees 10 lakh cash, 40 tolas of gold

and 5 k.g. silver as a dowry to the petitioner No.1.

Petitioner No.1 is a Software Engineer. At the time of

marriage, he was working in TCS Company and he was

deputed to United Kingdom for time being. After the

marriage, the complainant obtained passport and VISA and

she joined her husband at United Kingdom. She also

obtained a job at United Kingdom. After the completion of

tenure at United Kingdom, petitioner No.1 and the

complainant returned to Bengaluru. Petitioner No.1 joined

the company work. Petitioner Nos.2 to 8 used to visit the

house of petitioner No.1 at Bengaluru and started to give

mental and physical torture to the complainant by using

filthy language and she was thrown out from the

READ  Smt Kanupriya vs Ashutosh Agrawal on 5 July, 2017

matrimonial house. After conciliation by elders and family

members, the complainant rejoined petitioner No.1. The

further allegation is that petitioner No.1 filed divorce case

by mutual consent with an intention to marry his sister’s
:5:

daughter i.e. petitioner No.8 and, when this came to the

knowledge of the complainant, she approached the Court

and shown her unwillingness to divorce by mutual consent.

After that, complainant was again thrown out of the

matrimonial house on 18.10.2016. All the petitioners went

to the complainant’s house, threatened her, poured

kerosene and tried to kill her. At that time, at the

intervention of the neighbours, all the petitioners went

away by warning her that they would take away her life.

Thereafter, she was admitted to a Government Hospital.

On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be

registered against the petitioners/accused for aforesaid

offences.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioners/accused and also the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. Looking to the materials placed on record, sofar

as the allegations of pouring kerosene and setting fire is

concerned, the learned Government Pleader brought to the
:6:

notice of this Court that the injuries sustained by the

complainant are simple in nature as they are only small

abrasion as shown in the injury certificate. The injured has

already been discharged from the Hospital and presently,

the complainant is safe and out of danger. Though the

offence under Section 307 of IPC is a non-bailable in

nature, it is not exclusively punishable with death or

READ  Pradipta Basu Roy Chowdhury-vs-Smt. Babita Basu Roy Chowdhury And on 19 September, 1996

imprisonment for life. Petitioners have contended that false

allegations are made against them; and they are innocent

and are not involved in committing the said offences.

Petitioners have also undertaken that they are ready to

abide by any reasonable conditions that may be imposed

by the Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that, by imposing

reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to

anticipatory bail.

5. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent

Police is directed to enlarge the petitioners/accused on bail

in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime

No.190/2016 registered in the respondent-police station
:7:

for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A,

323, 504, 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following

conditions:

i) Each of the petitioners shall execute
personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
and furnish one surety for the like sum
to the satisfaction of arresting authority.

ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.

iii) Petitioners shall make themselves
available before the IO for interrogation,
as and when called for.

iv) Petitioners shall appear before the
concerned Court within 30 days from the
date of this order and to execute the
personal bonds and the surety bonds.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK/Kms

Leave a Comment

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