SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anand G H vs State By Bidadi Police Station on 27 June, 2019







Anand G.H.,
S/o Huliyappa,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at Gopahalli Village,
Bidadi Hobli,
Ramanagara Taluk – 571 511,
Ramanagara District. … Petitioner

(By Sri. B. Ravindra, Advocate)


State by Bidadi Police Station,
Rep. by SPP,
High Court,
Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime
No.61/2018 of Ramanagara Women Police Station,
Ramanagara for the offences p/u/s 324, 355, 342,
498A, 307 r/w 34 of SectionIPC.

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


The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in

the event of his arrest pursuant to the proceedings in

Crime No. 61/2018 with respect to offences punishable

under Sections 324, Section355, Section342, Section498A, Section307 r/w 34 of SectionIPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the

complainant and the petitioner were married about

twelve years back and the marriage was of their own

choice. It is stated that from within the wedlock, they

have two children. It is the further case that differences

have cropped up in the matrimonial relationship and

there were frequent altercations. It is stated that on

28.10.2018, the petitioner is said to have assaulted the

complainant. Initially, though the complaint was given,

the matter was settled and the statement of the

complainant was recorded on 13.10.2018. The

complainant had stated that she would not attempt to

commit suicide and the matter was settled and she had

gone back with the petitioner on the basis of assurance

of the petitioner. It is stated that subsequently, another

altercation has ensued on 10.11.2018 and it is alleged

that petitioner had administered pesticide to the

complainant and went away with the children.

Subsequently, it is stated that the complainant was

admitted to the hospital and took treatment in the


3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states

that there were frequent altercations and as differences

cropped up in the matrimonial relationship, it is stated

that as regards the earlier incident which was the

subject matter of complaint, by recording the statement

of the complainant on 13.10.2018, the matter was

settled and the complainant had stated that she would

not attempt to commit suicide. In the light of such

statement, the genesis of the complaint is in doubt and

the petitioner denies factual assertions made out in the

complaint. The petitioner states that he would co-

operate with the investigation and asserts that

complaint itself is a false complaint.

4. Taking note of the above fact and also

existence of previous differences amongst the petitioner

and the complainant and also that on earlier occasion

the complaint in DP No.40/2018 was recorded with the

police in which statement has been made by the

complainant also, taking note of the fact that

complainant has been discharged subsequently, the

question of commission of offence by the petitioner is a

matter to be proved during trial. Accordingly, petitioner

is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. The Sessions Court has rejected the application

by order dated 29.11.2018 stating that the case was

made out as regards commission of offence noting that

presence of the petitioner was required for custodial

interrogation. However, it is submitted by the learned

counsel for petitioner that there is seizure of wooden log

(repiece) and further states that there is no other

requirement for custodial interrogation.

6. In the result, the bail petition filed by the

petitioner under Sec. 438 of SectionCr.P.C. is allowed and the

petitioner is enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in

Crime No. 61/2018 with respect to offences punishable

under Sections 324, Section355, Section342, Section498A, Section307 r/w 34 of SectionIPC

subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear in person
before the Investigating Officer in
connection with Crime No.61/2018
within 15 days from today and shall
execute a personal bond for a sum of
`1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with
a surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.


(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate
with the Investigating Officer and shall
not indulge in any criminal activities

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way, any

(iv) The petitioner shall physically present
himself and mark his attendance

before the concerned Station House
Officer once in fortnight/week between
10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of
the final report.

(v) In the event of change of address, the
petitioner to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.

(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioner, shall
result in cancellation of bail.


Any observation made herein shall not be taken as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.




Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation