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
5the 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
