SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anand S/O Manohar Kari vs The State Of Karnataka, on 12 June, 2017






1. Anand S/o.Manohar Kari,
Age : 34 years, Occ : Engineer,
2. Jyotsna W/o.Manohar Kari,
Age : 66 years, Occ : Household work,
3. Surekha D/o.Manohar Kari,
Age : 38 years, Occ ; Household work,
4. Sarang S/o.Manohar Kari,
Age :: 36 years, Occ : Service,
5. Sinchita W/o.Sarang Kari,
Age : 36 years, Occ : Household work,
All are R/o.# 299, BEML Layout,
4th Main, 11th Cross, Basaveshwar Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 079. … Petitioners
(By Sri.K.L.Patil, Advocate)

1. The State of Karnataka,
Through Women’s Police Station, Belagavi,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad. … Respondent

(By Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under section 439 (1)(b)
of Cr.P.C., Seeking to relax bail condition No.4 imposed by
the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Belagavi in Crl.Misc.No.984/2017 while granting
Anticipatory Bail for the offence punishable under Section
498A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.

This petition coming on for Order, this day, the
court, made the following:


This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.1 to 5 seeking relaxation of condition of the bail order

imposed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge,

Belagavi sofar as condition No.4 is concerned.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5, so also

the learned High Court Government Pleader.

3. I have perused the order dated 25.04.2017

passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge,

Belagavi in Criminal Miscellaneous No.984/2017. Looking

to the condition No.4 in the bail order, there is no absolute

restraint as such. It is stated that without prior permission

they should not leave the jurisdiction. Therefore the

petitioners could have filed application before the learned

Sessions Judge, Belagavi seeking permission for leaving

the jurisdiction. Hence with these observation petition is

disposed off.

4. If any such application is filed, the learned

Sessions Judge has to dispose of it, as early as possible,

on merits and in accordance with law.



3 thoughts on “Anand S/O Manohar Kari vs The State Of Karnataka, on 12 June, 2017

  1. Sir/Madam:
    First of all we are being so harassed and tortured by this fake case filed against us by Shruti Nagendra Acharya, Nagendra Acharya, Asha Nagendra Acharya, Akshay Nagendra Acharya in Belgaum police station.
    Though we are fighting the case , but I think that such false cases should not be encouraged at all .
    On top of it you are publishing the orders with our names being displayed on the internet.
    Without doing us we are facing all such mental torture and harassment and getting our names displayed in criminal case orders .

    1. We get judgments from Court sites and and its allowed to publish on our sites, its not only our site you can find many copies of same judgment on many other sites too.

      1. The case under 482 crpc is quashed and misuse of law but Shruti nagendra acharya is done. Refer to highcourt judgement dated 19 Nov 2019

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2022 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