SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr.Goutham Krishna vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3898 OF 2021

BETWEEN :

MR. GOUTHAM KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O MANJUNATH
R/AT THANIGEBYLU
JAYAPURA
TARIKERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
KARNATAKA – 577 129
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LINGADAHALLI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.31/2021 OF
LINGADAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU
2

DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTINS 279, 498A, 324, 354, 307, 506 AND 504 OF
IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioner/accused is before this Court

seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in

Crime No.31 of 2019 of Lingadahalli Police Station, on

the basis of the first information lodged by the

informant for the offence punishable under Sections

279, 498-A, 324, 354, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the accused

is her husband and there was a family dispute

between the two. Therefore, she started residing in

her parental house. On 01.04.2021, at about

9.00 a.m., the accused came to the parental house of

the informant in his Omni Car bearing registration
3

No.KA-19/M-0575 and started abusing the informant

in filthy language. At that time, the villagers advised

him to come along with his father to settle the matter.

Without heeding to their advise, the accused

trespassed into the house and criminally intimidated

that he would cut the limbs of the informant and

assaulted to her left leg with a chopper. The accused

tried to kidnap his 2nd child. When the informant

asked to give her child back, the accused caught hold

of her hair and drove the car in a rash and negligent

manner. As a result, the informant fell on the road,

sustained injuries which could have caused her death.

In the meanwhile, the villagers came and intervened

in the matter and immediately, she was shifted to the

Hospital. Therefore, the informant requested the

police to register the case and to initiate legal action

against the accused. Accordingly, the police

registered the case and took up investigation. It is
4

stated that now the investigation is completed and the

charge sheet is also filed.

3. Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Counsel for

the petitioner and Sri. H.R. Showri, learned HCGP for

the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed

on record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not

committed any offences as alleged. The dispute is

between the husband and wife and as a result, she

started residing in her parental house. Neither Section

279 or Section 307 of IPC are attracted to the facts of

the case. The wound certificate produced before the

Court would disclose that the informant had sustained

only simple injuries. The petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the matter without any basis. He was

apprehended on 01.04.2021 and since then he is in
5

judicial custody. The investigation has been completed

and the charge sheet is also filed. Since the

investigation is already completed, detention of the

petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial

punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident

of the address mentioned in the cause title of the

petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the

conditions that would be imposed by this Court.

Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious

allegations are made against the petitioner for having

committed the offences. There are eye witnesses to

the incident. The material placed before the Court

would show that there was a clear intention of causing

the death to the informant. Looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled

for grant of bail. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail,
6

he may abscond or may tamper or threaten the

prosecution witnesses Hence, he prays for dismissal of

the petition.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that

would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is
entitled for grant of bail under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in the

‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

7. The allegations made against the petitioner

is of serious nature. The wound certificate would

disclose that the informant sustained simple injuries.

Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the

charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the
7

petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial

punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the

petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to

conditions which will take care of the apprehension

expressed by the learned High Court Government

Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may

tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in

the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail

in Crime No.31 of 2019 of Lingadahalli Police Station

on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the

likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court,

subject to the following conditions:
8

a). The petitioner shall not commit
similar offences.

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or
tamper with the prosecution
witnesses.

c). The petitioner shall appear before the
Court as and when required.

If in case the petitioner violates any of these

conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the

trial Court for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Mds.

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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