SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arun Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3049/2018
Between:

Arun Kumar,
S/o Late Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 32 years,
No.36, Old No.56, 4th Cross,
B Main, Muneshwara Block,
P.G.Halli, Bengaluru-560 012. …Petitioner

(By Sri Abhishek .K, Advocate)

And:

State of Karnataka,
By Vyalikaval Police
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karanatka,
Bengaluru – 560 001 ….Respondent

(By Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Crime No.204/2017 (S.C.No.189/2018) of Vyalikaval Police
Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and etc.,
2

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

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.204/2017

(S.C.No.189/2018).

2. Investigation is completed and charge-sheet is

laid under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

4. The learned HCGP has not filed any statement

of objection, but has orally opposed the petition.

5. Petitioner and the deceased got married on

21.03.2011 and they had two children. According to the

prosecution, at the time of marriage, substantial dowry

was paid to the deceased. Even thereafter, the petitioner

herein raised a demand for additional dowry. On that
3

account, the deceased was subjected to cruelty and

harassment in the matrimonial home. Being unable to bear

the cruelty, on 24.11.2017, the deceased committed

suicide.

6. Since the investigation is completed and the

material witnesses relied on by the prosecution is proof of

the above allegations are the immediate relatives of the

petitioner, the possibility of the petitioner threatening or

alluring these witnesses is remote. The allegations made

against the petitioner require to be established during trial.

Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.

7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

a) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail
on furnishing a bond in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
with one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

b) Petitioner shall appear before the court as
and when required.

4

c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the
prosecution witnesses in whatsoever
manner.

d) Petitioner shall not get involved in similar
offences.

e) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Trial Court without prior permission of
the Trial Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AV/ds

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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