Karnataka High Court Mr. Vijay Kumar @ Viji Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRL.P.No.2060/2014
1. MR.VIJAY KUMAR @ VIJI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
BOTH AR RESIDING AT
NO.123, 4TH MAIN, ANNAM ENCLAVE ASHWATH NAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 077.
(BY SRI.RAVISHANKAR D.R., ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HENNUR POLICE STATION
BANGALORE CITY – 560 036.
(BY SRI.K.R.KESHAVAMURTHY, ASPP) THIS CRL. P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C WITH A PRAYER TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.50/14 OF HENNUR P.S., -2-
BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCS PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 509, 506, 354, 324 AND 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRL. P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: – ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court in the following background seeking Anticipatory Bail:
2. It transpires that the petitioner No.1 is married to one Bhagyalakshmi and he was married to her in the year 2012. It is alleged that he had received a dowry of over Rs.25 Lakh at the time of marriage, but even thereafter, he was not satisfied and demanded more. On this ground, it is alleged that the complainant was constantly harassed and treated with cruelty not only by petitioner No.1 but also by her father-in-law as well as petitioner No.2- herbrother-in-law. It is also alleged that they even tried to assault her sexually. Therefore, she was compelled to withdraw from the society of petitioner No.1 and filed a petition for divorce, which is pending -3-
before the Family Court at Bangalore. The petitioners being apprehensive of their being taken to custody on the false allegations made by the complainant had approached the Court below seeking Anticipatory Bail, which has been rejected.
3. The petitioners claim to be respectable persons and that the petitioner No.1 is employed with a prestigious company, which has strict disciplinary rules and that if in the event of his arrest, it is likely that he will lose his employment. The rules of employment provides that in the event of any employee being involved in any criminal case would be removed immediately. It id in fear of such a circumstance, that the petitioner has been desperately seeking bail. It is further contended that the complainant herself has come forward to resolve the dispute between herself and petitioner No.1 and that there is an attempt at resolution by recourse to mediation. The pending matrimonial case before the family court has been referred to mediation and that -4-
the mediation meeting is set down for 24.06.2012 where there is all likelihood that the dispute between the parties is likely to be resolved and it is also possible that the complaint itself could be withdrawn. In this background, the petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on interim bail, notwithstanding the objections raised by the learned Additional SPP, on the condition that the petitioners shall report before this Court on 05.06.2014 as to the further developments and for confirmation of bail in their favour or otherwise.
4. In the event of the petitioners arrest, they shall be enlarged on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) and a solvent surety each, for a like sum and subject to further developments. Call on 05.06.2014.