SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anand vs State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2014

Karnataka High Court Anand vs State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.562/2014

BETWEEN:

ANAND,

S/O MALLAYYA,

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,

R/AT NO.204, 9TH CROSS,

3RD MAIN, RAVINDRANAGARA,

T.DASARAHALLI,

BANGALORE-560 057.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRAVEENKUMAR.K.S., ADV.) AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

BY PEENYA POLICE,

BANGALORE,

REPRESENTED BY THE

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

BANGALORE-560 001.

.. RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.814/2013 OF PEENYA P.S., BANGALORE CITY, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(a), 354 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.4 OF D.P.ACT. 2

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

ORDER

This is the petition filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent – police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent – police in Crime No.814/2013.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case that on 30.03.2013, at the time of marriage of the complainant with the petitioner/accused No.1, they gave gold of 80 grams and one Lakh cash as dowry to the accused. It is further alleged in the complaint that the husband as well as other family members of the husband started to torture the complainant and insisting her to bring more dowry amount. It is further alleged in the complaint that the father-in-law of the complainant insisting her to have the sexual intercourse with him and it is further case of the 3

prosecution that the present petitioner used to come to house in a drunken state and insisting the complainant to bring more dowry amount otherwise they will not leave her to live in their house. On the basis of the said complaint, the case is registered.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

4. The petitioner herein is the husband. The allegations for the alleged offences punishable under Section 354 is made against the father-in-law. So far as husband is concerned, it is the allegations that he was also alongwith their family members insisting the complainant to bring more dowry amount but in the averments made in the bail petition, he has denied of these allegations and he has contended that he is innocent and there is a false implication of the petitioner in the present case. He also contended that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. The only apprehension of the prosecution is that if this 4

petitioner is granted with anticipatory bail, he may abscond and he may tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions to secure the presence of the petitioner before the investigating officer or before the concerned trial Court, he can be admitted to bail. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or imprisonment of life. Hence, looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner can be admitted to bail.

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent – police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent – police in Crime No.814/2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court; 5

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for.

(vi) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VM

Leave a Reply

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

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