SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gudivada Rajesh vs State Of Karnataka on 5 February, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.109/2018
BETWEEN:

1. Gudivada Rajesh
S/o Vijayakumar
Aged about 30 years
R/at No.39, CKB Layout
Munnekolleda
Marthahalli
Bangalore-560 037.

2. Gudivada Vijayakumar
S/o Late Marranna
Aged about 54 years

3. G Sujatha
W/o Vijayakumar
Aged about 47 years

4. G Bhargavi Devi
D/o Vijayakumar
Aged about 25 years

Petitioners No.2 to 4 are
R/at No.10-3-272/2RT
Amulya Enclave
Vijaya Nagar Colony
Hyderabad-500 057
Telangana State. … PETITIONERS

(By Sri Bhaskar Reddy M, Adv.)
2

AND:

State of Karnataka
By Marathahalli Police Station
Through Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001. …RESPONDENT

(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail for
nonbailable offence P/U/S 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of D.P. Act in Crime/Criminal complaint may ought to be
filed by the defacto complainant before the respondent
Marathahalli Police Station, Bangalore.

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

ORDER

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has

filed a Memo seeking withdrawal of the petition in

respect of petitioner No.4. Memo is placed on record.

In view of the Memo, petition in respect of petitioner

No.4 is disposed of as withdrawn.

3

2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 to 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking

anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to

release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest

for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

registered in respondent police station Crime

No.614/2017, registered subsequently.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and

also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record.

4

5. It is the case of the petitioners herein that

petitioner No.1 is the husband of the complainant and

he has lodged the complaint against his wife on

24.7.2017 itself. Copy of the same is produced as per

Annexure ‘A’. I have perused the said complaint. It is

also the case of the petitioners that accused

No.1/petitioner No.1 herein also filed petition under

Section 13(ia) and (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking

divorce of the marriage of petitioner No.1 with the

complainant. Hence, it is the contention of the

petitioners herein that since such complaint was made

prior to the complaint of the complainant herein, false

allegations are made against the petitioners by filing a

this complaint.

6. Perusing the materials placed on record though

there are allegations in the complaint that the

petitioners herein were giving ill-treatment and
5

harassment to the complainant both physical and

mental, those allegations were denied by the petitioners

stating that there is a false implication. They are ready

to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by

the Court. The alleged offences are also triable by the

Magistrate Court and are not exclusively punishable

with death or imprisonment for life. In view of the

materials produced by the petitioners i.e., copy of the

complaint and the copy of the petition filed seeking

divorce as against the complainant, I am of the opinion

that petitioners have made out a case for admitting

them to anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police are directed to enlarge the petitioners

on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged

offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered
6

in respondent police station Crime No.614/2017,

subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each
and shall furnish one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
arresting authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses, directly or
indirectly.

iii. Petitioners shall make themselves
available before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation, as and when
called for and to cooperate with the
further investigation.

iv. Petitioners shall appear before the
concerned Court within 30 days from
the date of this order and to execute
the personal bond and the surety
bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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 to read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registrationJOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307,312, 313,323 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509; and also TEP, RTI etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh