SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

K B Anil Raj vs State Of Karnataka By on 6 December, 2018

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/-

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