SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr Ramandeep Mata vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2011

Karnataka High Court Mr Ramandeep Mata vs State Of Karnataka on 16 December, 2011Author: H.Billappa



CRIMINAL PETITIoNEAN’oI4972/,2o-1Iv, IN CRL.P.No.497 1/201 1


Mr.Ramandeep _ g

S/o.Harjinder Si-ngh _

Age 33 years, I _ . :

R/at.No.95/7.,Civii’I;ines,.._4″ ” Jhansi, Uttar Prad’€:sh.:V’:I'” . Petitioner (By Sri.R.L.P’ati’i for ‘&=’Pati1, Adv.) AND:

:’V’S_tate. of””nata1;a, “”” By Station’Hou_’se”‘in Charge Inspector, Korama_nga1a–« Station,

‘vi’ _ . , Koran; aiigala,’ * . f_ . B_anga1″c-re. ‘ ~. …Respondent _, , ‘%] 1 Sri. P. iiarunakar, HCGP) **=l<***

.’ V’;This Cr1.P is filed U/S438 Cr.P.C by the Advocate for ‘ “t.he”petitioner praying that this I-Ion’b1e Court may be pleased 2

to grant Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest FIR No.368/11 of Koramangala P.S., Bangalore offence P/U/S 498-A, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and D.P. Act.

IN CRL.P.No.4972/20 1 1


1. Sri.Harjinder Singh Mata,

S / o.Sri Kartar Singh,

Aged 70 years, _ ._ 1

Retired Deputy Manager,?.

State Bank OfI1:dia,J1’1avnsfi, Up, ”’-»VKa§jd_r:_Mata; S W / o.Harjinde.r”Singh. M;i.;ta;’ Aged 6_1_y.€_a”r.s”.’ . V’ S’ « Ex)

Both are R/ ‘Lines,

J hansi,’ Uttar Pr__a’d.esh’ –~ ” ” a . . . Petitioners (By Sri.R;.L.1?Aati’1u”for M .;”s.I.3ati1: & Patil, Adv.) State A of “

‘ S’ Station Hotfii’se5’In«Charge/ _ Inspector, Koiainangala Police Station, _ . _ Korarnangala,

” ” Bangalore.” …Respondent

(‘sy ‘Sri;PiKarunakar, HCGP)


This Cr1.P is filed U/s.488 Cr.P.C by the Advocate for the petitioners praying that this Hon’b1e Court pleased to grant Anticipatory Bail, in the event of :their. in FIR No.368/ 11 of Koramangala P.S., Bangai’ore.C.ity:d _ the offence P/U/S 498–A, 324, 504, soeef we see;e,se;4 ” of DP. Act.

These Cr1.Ps. are coming’ the”. Court made the following: .

OT{_DE?’vh” ‘ T

The petitioners. have.-fiiedietrviesee under Section 438 of Cr.P.C prayingforgiraiitiVtofiiinticipatory Bail.

2. pnetitivons, the petitioners are 1aw–abidingigit–izer1sV.andTthe-ailegations do not indicate any offence punderauSe_ction of IPC and the petitioners are 1-fqgeadyg abide’ by ivvailiiévconditions that may be imposed. Vi’.c~,petitioners have prayed for grant of A:nticip«atory’BTAai1T.

It is alleged, the marriage between the . v-fj=.___’c’omp1ainant and the petitioner in Cr1.P.No.4971/2011 was solemnized on l7/18.01.2009 at

%.25,oo,ooo/- and giving jewellery, c1,§th§:§’¢tc_, -<1; ,j:s–a11¢’ggdf;« the petitioners were not happy with tliefllgifts B’ At. time of marriage, complainant’sf”i.husband’-gRanian was employed with the Accenture “ll/lidyshree Tech Park, White Field, Bangalore — 560 006 and postedfo vveoifnplajnant went to Chicago along is glleged, in Chicago Raman’s b.elia’Zio’L1r “rude a’nd.<‘he used to taunt the Complainant. ._ –Rarnan was transferred to Bangalore and Phoenix, US, on a new assignmegnt. The ‘-Qorriplainant went to Phoenix with Raman and lshellwans itortured there.

On June 2010, Raman was transferred to ‘lta._,.Banga1ore,. and the complainant returned to Bangalore with A’ It–is alleged, Raman demanded ?.3,00,000/~ to rent an If and purchase furniture. The complainant informed T he’r”‘father and 12,00,000/– was sent and furniture and (X,


necessary house hold articles were purchased. It is stated, flat No.G.F.2, Alpine Court Apartment, 71″ B Kormangala 3rd Block, Bangalore, was taken on–,4′:rent,:’ receiving ?.2,00,000/- Raman de’mande7d complainant refused, Raman alpausedflth-e_l filthy language. Thereafter, her’ father to send the money car. filler father sent a cheque for ?’.4,25,00f3 amount of $40,000/– was of the

complainant. the name of the complainant,lllll “€50,000/– was deposited into the accoulntof’ for maintenance charges. During R-aksha ..Bandan festival Raman’s sister Visited “Ori Santro car, she taunted the insulted the complainant saying why wllonly ?.5’0,0Q’O/alwas asked from her father and assaulted her. “tl)ti,r1ng,”September 2010, when complainants parents~in–law yiasited”Blangalore, complainant complained to them about ~Rainan’s behaviour. They took Raman’s side. It is alleged, 1/

there. On 11.7.2011, the complainant’s_ Bangalore and on 12.7.2011, he

and found that Raman had vacated the house When complainant called her paren_ts–in:»l;a’w,qthe’3? and told her to forget Raman. cloiilplaintvfghas been lodged and a case in I of horamangala Police Station, Bangalore, the offences punishable under 506 of IPC and Sections 3 andiléjlu V S

5. for the petitioners contended that the petitioners’ “innocent of the offences alleged againstjghleria and have been falsely implicated in the case thAe»A.al1uegations do not attract Sections 498A and 324 of :'”also.:;'”submitted that the petitioner in Crl.P. lJ’o.497fl”,/26:11′ a Software Engineer and the petitioners are for investigation and therefore, the petitioners can anticipatory bail.


6. As against this, the learned .lP1ead”erll submitted that the investigation petitioners are required for __”‘investi’gationl’ a«s’’rious.’ allegations have been made and__lithei=enfore’,l “the petitioners cannot be granted antieipa’toi’yAliailgp’ 1′

7. I have ~vCa1je’,Full3:t__ –the:VVfsubmissions made by the learned ?:o11:ns:e’l’ V

8. he -poi0i’it”th’at ariusve.S’for my Consideration is; Whietfterl pie-tilttoners can be granted , — –anticij9a;to’iyi” bdil?

is relei/aritto note, the allegations are that the nisirriage between the petitioner in Crl.P.No.497 1 / 201 1 and V the solemnized on 17/ 18.01.2009 at Jhansi and a ?”:25,00.000/– was spent for the marriage and “fiiialiiable articles were given. It is alleged, the petitioner in Cril_.P,.No”.~497l/201l demanded Car, money etc., and “ll.’jg~vi__assa1VJ;,lted the complainant. The petitioners contend, the ‘parents-in~law of the complainant lodged the complaint on L/

13.7.2011 and as a counter blast, the complainant has the complaint. The offences alleged are not death or life imprisonment. The complaint ljias”” subsequent to the complaint lodged’1«pby:._l_ltl’le The petitioner in Crl.P.No.4971/2:Olp_1 isha The petitioners in Crl.P.No__.4972.1_ are age’d–.abQ,ut 70 and 9 years respectively. ‘T1162petltivonersolare available for investigation. TherefOre;.’Wthe~ petifioriers. lean be granted antici ato bail”s”t1b*3e.c’;t to..c.e1’tairi.”conditions.

10. the~«l.._peti_tions are allowed and the petitioners fare ppgra_ntedlV’ariticipatory bail subject to the following Conditions; – A V

£111 ._thellll”e’vent of their arrest in of Koramangala Police

petitioners shall be released

.¢n~bai1 on their executing a bond for a if of €50,000/~ each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.





The petitioners shall appear before the 1.0. within one week from today and shall co–operate with the I.O. for inVestigation..’u’~…’._: as and when required.

The petitioners shall not .’


If the petitioners Violette .;:tI}y”€.Qndi’tiO*r.L_ the respondent–Sta’te.7 _ ‘-_ca{r11 for cancellation of the i ii

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

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


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