SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr Rajendra Gowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4412/2018

BETWEEN:

MR RAJENDRA GOWDA
S/O B.H.G.GOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PRESENT ADDRESS NO.7185,
SOBHA FOREST VIEW,
KANAKAPUR ROAD,
BANGALORE – 560 062.

OLD ADDRESS
NO.1102, 11TH FLOOR, D-03 FLAT,
SOUTH CITY, J.P.NAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 078.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI CHETAN B.ANGADI, ADV.,)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THE VIJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.271/2016
(C.C.NO.26099/2017) OF VIJAYANAGAR P.S.,
BANGALOLRE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 504,
506, 304, 201, 498A R/W 149 OF IPC.

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

ORDER

The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime

No.271/2016.

2. Initially, the case was registered against the

petitioner under Section 498A of IPC, based on the

complaint lodged by the father of deceased alleging that

the deceased was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment

by the petitioner herein in the matrimonial home, which

led to her untimely death on 21.02.2016. During

investigation, the Investigating Officer made an

application to the jurisdictional Court to incorporate

Section 306 of IPC, but in view of the statement of the
3

witnesses, charge sheet is laid against the petitioner

under Section 304 of IPC.

3. The application moved by the petitioner before

the trial Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., has been

rejected mainly on the ground that the investigating

agency has collected prima facie material in proof of the

offence under Section 304 of IPC.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent-State.

5. The learned HCGP has not filed any statement

of objections in spite of granting sufficient opportunity.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken

me through the records, which indicate that the

petitioner and the deceased were married for 4 years. In

the wedlock, the deceased had begotten a girl child. The
4

deceased developed viral fever on 02.02.2016 and she

was admitted to Fortis Hospital. The medical records

indicate that the deceased died due to multi-organ

failure on 21.02.2016. The records also indicate that

subsequent to the death of the deceased, there were

dispute between the petitioner and the parents of the

deceased regarding the custody of the minor daughter.

Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the

Guardian and Wards Act. That being the case, on

24.05.2016 three months after the death, the father of

the deceased alleged cruelty to the deceased by making

a complaint before the respondent-Police and hence,

initially the FIR was registered under Section 498A of

IPC. It is stated that the petitioner had obtained

anticipatory bail in the said offence. It is also submitted

that accused Nos.2 to 9 are admitted to anticipatory bail

by the Sessions Court.

5

7. In view of the submission of the charge sheet

under Section 304 of IPC, the only aspect that requires

to be considered is whether the material on record make

out the offence under Section 304 of IPC? In this

regard, it is noticed that the medical records clearly

indicate that the deceased was treated in the hospital as

inpatient for about 21 days immediately prior to the

death and she died in the hospital on account of multi-

organ failure. As on that day, there were no allegations

attracting the offence under Section 498A or 304 of IPC.

It is only after the initiation of the proceedings for the

custody of the child, the allegation attracting the

criminal offence appears to have surfaced. The records

also do not indicate any cruelty to the deceased by the

petitioner herein during her lifetime.

8. Taking into consideration all the above facts

and circumstances, the petitioner is required to be

admitted to anticipatory bail. Moreover, the petitioner
6

had the benefit of anticipatory bail in

Crl.P.No.803/2017 dated 26.07.2017. The later

insertion of additional offence cannot have the effect of

canceling the earlier bail.

9. In view of the above legal and factual position,

the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is

directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court within

15 days from the date of this order and on his

appearance, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to the

following conditions:-

a. Petitioner shall furnish a bond in a
sum of Rs.1,00,000 lakh (Rupees One
lakh only) with two sureties for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court;

7

b. The petitioner shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court as and when
required; and

c. The petitioner shall not threaten or
allure the prosecution witnesses.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PB

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