SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nagesh S/O Kasiram Mudagal vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2020

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201574/2019

BETWEEN:

Nagesh S/o Kasiram Mudagal
Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture Labour
R/o New Hebbal Village, Tq. Chittapur
Dist: Kalaburagi-585312
… Petitioner
(By Sri Satish Kumar D. Gadkar, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
Through Police, Madbool P.S.
Dist: Kalaburagi
R/by Addl. SPP Kalaburagi
Bench-585107
… Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition thereby directing the
respondent police/Madbool Police, Dist. Kalaburagi to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Crime No.88/2019 registered for the offences punishable
under sections 498(A), 302, 201 r/w section 34 of IPC,
pending on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court
at Chittapur.
2

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioner – accused no.3

under section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking directions to the

respondent – Police that in the case of his arrest, he is to

be released on bail for the offences punishable under

sections 498A, 302, 201 read with section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

well as the learned HCGP.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the material on record indicates that he is only the brother

of accused no.1, who was the husband of the deceased

Ambika. It is also contended that the petitioner was

already married and was staying separately from accused

no.1 as well as the deceased Ambika and as such, the

question of him being involved in the incident resulting in

the death of Ambika does not arise. Thirdly, it is

contended that even a perusal of the complaint averments
3

would indicate that no specific allegation or allegation of

any overt act is made against the petitioner and all the

allegations are made only against accused no.1 and not

against the petitioner. It is therefore contended that this

is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP would support the

order passed by the Sessions Court. He would also contend

that having regard to the gravity and serious nature of

offence alleged against the petitioner, he is not entitled for

grant of anticipatory bail.

5. A perusal of the material on record would

indicate that there is nothing to show that the petitioner

was residing along with either his brother, accused no.1 or

the deceased Ambika. So also, the complaint would

indicate that there is no independent overt act alleged

against the petitioner but only omnibus allegations are

made against all the accused persons including the

petitioner herein. Under these circumstances, I am of the

opinion that the petitioner being only the brother of
4

accused no.1, who was the husband of the deceased

Ambika, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail by

imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioner. Hence, I

pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. In the event the petitioner is

arrested in Crime No.88/2019 of Madbool Police Station,

for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302,

201 read with Section 34 of IPC, he shall be enlarged on

bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for `1,00,000/- with one surety
for the like sum to the satisfaction of
the concerned court.

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.

(iii) Petitioner to appear before the
concerned court within 30 days from
5

the date of this order to furnish the
personal bond as well as surety bond.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE
swk
6

SRKKJ: Crl.P.No.201574/2019
20.02.2020

ORDER

By order dated 20.01.2020 this Court allowed this

petition by passing the following order:

“ORDER

The petition is allowed. In the event the
petitioner is arrested in Crime No.88/2019 of
Madbool Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 302, 201
read with Section 34 of IPC, he shall be
enlarged on bail, subject to the following
conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for `1,00,000/- with one surety for the
like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned
court.

(ii)Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

7

(iii) Petitioner to appear before the
concerned court within 30 days from the
date of this order to furnish the personal
bond as well as surety bond.

Ordered accordingly.”

Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an application

I.A.No.1/2020 seeking modification of the aforesaid order

by substituting Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34

of IPC in the place of Sections 302 and 201 of IPC as

contained in the aforesaid order passed by this Court.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

subsequent to the aforesaid order passed by this Court,

the police authorities have filed chargesheet restricting the

offences in respect of the petitioner only to Sections

498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. Under these
8

circumstances, the aforesaid order dated 20.01.2020

deserves to be modified. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

I.A.No.1/2020 is hereby allowed.

The operative portion of the order dated 20.01.2020

is to be substituted as under:-

The petition is allowed. In the event the

petitioner is arrested in Crime No.88/2019 of

Madbool Police Station, for the offences

punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 read

with Section 34 of IPC, he shall be enlarged on

bail, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal

bond for `1,00,000/- with one surety for the

like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned

court.

9

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with

any of the prosecution witnesses directly or

indirectly.

(iii) The stipulated period of 30 days

granted by this Court is extended by another

period of 30 days from today.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE
RSP

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