SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Basavaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2014

Karnataka High Court Basavaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MAY 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3018 of 2014 BETWEEN:

1. Basavaraju,

Son of Chennappa,

Aged about 57 years,

B. Hosur,

Keragodu Hobli,

Mandya Taluk and District – 571 446.

2. Shivamma,

Wife of Basavaraju,

Aged about 50 years,

B. Hosur,

Keragodu Hobli,

Mandya Taluk and District – 571 446. …PETITIONERS

(By Shri. Chandrashekara K.A., Advocate) AND:

The State of Karnataka,

By the Police of Rajgopal Nagara P.S., Bangalore City – 560 091.

…RESPONDENT

2

(By Shri. K. Nageshwarappa, Government Pleader) *****

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.239/2014 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, Bangalore, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. This petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners are said to be the father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased. On the basis of a complaint by the mother of the deceased, a case was registered against the petitioners and their son alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).

2. The petitioners claim that they were living apart from their son and his deceased wife and had nothing to do with the matrimonial affairs. It is only on the allegation of the complainant that the petitioners have been implicated. The 3

petitioners having approached the court below seeking anticipatory bail, the same has been rejected on ground that the allegations are of a serious nature and since there was death immediately within seven years from the date of marriage of the deceased, the petitioners would have to await further investigation and findings. The court below has ignored the fact that the petitioners were residing away from the matrimonial home of the deceased.

3. Therefore, in the circumstances, in the event of the arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on bail on their furnishing self bonds, each in a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a solvent surety each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Police. The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the concerned Police, as and when required and shall attend the court on all dates of hearing. The petitioners shall not induce or threaten 4

any prosecution witnesses. The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission. Sd/-

JUDGE

nv

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