Crl.P.No.7704 OF 2018
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7704 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
K.B.Anil Raj
S/o Boregowda
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Venkatesh Building
5th Cross, Maheswarinagar
Opp St.Mary’s School
T.Dasarahalli, Bengaluru-560 057.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. Sreenivasan M.Y., Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Peenya Police Station
Bengaluru
R/p by SPP
HCK, Bangalore-560 001.
…Respondent
(By Sri.Nasrulla Khan, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.555/2012 (S.C.No.86/2013) of Peenya P.S., Bangalore
for the offence P/U/S 498A, 304B of IPC.
Crl.P.No.7704 OF 2018
-2-
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C.No.86/2013 on the file
of the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore. The petitioner and his father were charge-sheeted
in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections
304B, 498A of IPC, on the allegation that both of them
subjected the petitioner’s wife-Nandini to dowry harassment
and caused dowry death.
2. The petitioner’s father failed to appear in the case,
therefore, case against him was split up and separate case
was registered against him. The petitioner was granted bail in
SC.No.86/2013. But he failed to appear before the Court
since 21.01.2015. After 3½ years, in execution of non-bailable
warrant, he was arrested and produced before the trial Court
on 25.07.2018. The trial Court has rejected his bail
application.
Crl.P.No.7704 OF 2018
-3-
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
after the death of his wife, the petitioner left his child in his
parental house and therefore, he could not appear before the
trial Court. First of all, no material is placed on record to
substantiate the said contention.
4. Having executed the bond undertaking to appear
before the Court regularly, the petitioner was elusive from the
Court proceedings for 3½ years and thereby, hampered the
trial. There is clear abuse of discretion exercised once in
favour of the petitioner. There are no grounds to show further
indulgence to the petitioner.
Therefore, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB/-