SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr Prashant vs State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2014

Karnataka High Court Mr Prashant vs State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MAY, 2014 :BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2883/2014 BETWEEN:

1. Mr.Prashant,

S/o Raju,

Aged about 29 years,

R/at No.-10, 1st Main,

2nd Cross, Priyadarshini Extension, Moodlapalya,

Nagarabhavi Main Road,

Bangalore – 560 072.

2. Smt. Vijayakumari,

W/o Suresh Babu,

Aged about 37 years,

Behind Sridevi Engineering College, Tumakur Town, Sira gate,

Tumakur. …Petitioners (By Shri. C.R.Raghavendra Reddy, Advocate) AND:

State of Karnataka by

Sira Police,

Represented by High Court,

Bangalore-01. …Respondent (By Shri. K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) 2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1908, praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.49/2011 of Sira P.S., Tumkur and C.C.No.482/2011 pending on the file of C.J. (Sr.Dn.,) and J.M.F.C., Sira, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. This Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-

ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the State.

2. The petitioner No.1 is said to be the brother-in- law of the complainant. The petitioner No.2 is the aunt of accused No.1. The allegations are offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Since the petitioners’ claim that they are not residing in the matrimonial home of the complainant, the allegations that are made against them are not readily acceptable. Notwithstanding the same, the Court below has 3

rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail and therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. Notwithstanding that there are serious offences alleged and having regard to the relationship of the petitioners with the complainant and their proximity with the matrimonial home, the allegations cannot be foisted against the petitioners and the same cannot be readily sustainable. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the relief.

4. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. In the event of the arrest of the petitioners, they shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:- i) Each of the petitioners shall execute a self bond for a sum of `40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with a solvent surety each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the police; ii) That the petitioners shall not seek to influence the prosecution witnesses in any manner;

4

iii) That the petitioners shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing; and iv) That the petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority. Sd/-

JUDGE

KSR

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