SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr. Naveen Narayan @ vs State Of Karnataka By on 21 May, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3210 OF 2019

BETWEEN:
Mr. Naveen Narayan @
Navin Narayan B.T
S/o. B.T.Thimmegowda,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.156, 1st Stage,
3rd Block, 7th Cross,
Nagarabhavi,
Bengaluru-560 072. …Petitioner

(By Sri. Rakshit K.N. Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka by
Kunigal Police Station,
Kunigal,
Tumkur District – 572 130.
Rep. by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001. …Respondent

(By Sri. Divakar Maddur, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.95/2019 of Kunigal Police Station, Tumakuru District
for the offence punishable under Sections 307, Section498A of
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2 Crl.P.3210/2019

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

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused

the materials placed before the Court.

2. The present petitioner is the husband of the

complainant Smt.Asha C.S. The said complainant in her

complaint has stated that she was given in marriage to

the petitioner on 18.6.2018. However, soon after her

marriage, the accused and his family members started

subjecting her to harassment and assaulting her on

trivial matters. In that regard, she had lodged a

complaint against those people before Chandra Layout

Police Station on 15.3.2019, which police had

summoned them and got a written undertaking by them

about their proper conduct with respect to the

complainant. According to the complainant, even
3 Crl.P.3210/2019

thereafter, the accused intensified their harassment

against her and were demanding a cash of `50 lakhs to

be brought by her from her parents’ house. In that

regard, on 20.4.2019, while she along with her husband

i.e., the present petitioner, returning in a car from

Dharmastala to Bengaluru, the accused started

quarrelling with her while driving the car. While they

were near Kunigal village on National Highway-75

Bypass, the petitioner/accused with an intention to kill

her, took out an iron rod that was kept in the car and

attempted to assault her. Though she could avoid the

first attack made by her husband, but, his second

attack inflicted bleeding injury on her forehead. Despite

she pleading to stop the car and yelling for help, he did

not stop. However, her continued yelling seeking for

help invoked the response by a rider of a motorcycle on

the same road, who made that car to stop and noticed

that the complainant had sustained bleeding injuries.

4 Crl.P.3210/2019

He took the injured complainant in the same car to a

nearby hospital and got her medically treated. The

complainant has stated that because of the alleged

treatment, there was some delay in lodging the

complaint, which complaint was filed on 21.4.2019. The

same was registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and Section307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his

arguments submitted that a reading of the complaint in

its entirety no where shows that the complainant has

alleged any intention on the part of the accused of

committing her murder. Learned counsel also stated

that an attempt to strangulate by a co-passenger in a

car while the accused was driving the car is

impracticable. Even if it is taken as an attempt to

assault or an act of assault which was practiced in a car,

but, the same is due to sudden and grave provocation

instigated by the complainant herself. The learned
5 Crl.P.3210/2019

counsel further submitted that the complainant who

claims herself to be an injured was relieved/discharged

from the hospital on the same day i.e., on 20.4.2019

itself and after which, she came to her husband’s house,

wherein some negotiations took place. It is only after

the failure of the said negotiation, the complainant has

proceeded to lodge a false complaint against her

husband. Stating that the accused being an innocent

person, has not even attempted to abscond, learned

counsel prays for his enlargement on bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader in his arguments submitted that the alleged

intention cannot be decided or adjudicated at the stage

of disposal of a petition for seeking the relief of bail. An

attempt to commit strangulation while driving the car

though is said to be difficult to practice, but, it is not

impossible.

6 Crl.P.3210/2019

Learned High Court Government Pleader further

submits that, at the same time, inflicting bleeding injury

on the forehead of the complainant which is a vital part

on the person of the complainant, that too, while it was

the accused alone who was the other passenger in the

car, can give more answer than what is expected to

show that the alleged act has happened in the manner

as narrated by the complainant in her complaint.

5. The complainant is admittedly the wife of the

present petitioner/accused, who has stated that her

marriage with the present petitioner was performed very

recently i.e., on 18.6.2018, which is less than an year

from today. She has stated in her complaint that

immediately after marriage, she was subjected to

constant harassment in her matrimonial home not only

by the accused, but, by other inmates of the house.

She has given the details of the harassment, including

the one that they were pestering her to get an additional
7 Crl.P.3210/2019

amount of `50 lakhs from her parents’ house. According

to the complainant, it was only her husband who was a

co-passenger in the car and it was he who was driving

the car. Though she has stated that he attempted to

commit her murder by strangulating her, but, she also

stated that he failed in his attempt. She further stated

that, thereafter he took out an iron rod which was kept

in the car and assaulted her. The complainant also says

that it was a passerby on the road who was going on a

motorcycle, came to her rescue and got her medical

treatment. When the complaint is taken on its facial

value and at this stage though it may not be possible to

immediately deduce that there was an attempt to

commit the crime, but, it cannot be brushed aside that it

was an act of assault, that too, by using an instrument

like iron rod which is said to have been kept in the car.

6. Furthermore, according to the prosecution, the

investigation is said to be still in progress and the
8 Crl.P.3210/2019

enlargement of the accused/petitioner on bail is

apprehended as a deterrent to the smooth

investigation. The said apprehension expressed by the

prosecution cannot be brushed aside at this stage. As

such, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on

bail.

Accordingly, the Petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bk/

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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