SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nagesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 May, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MAY 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1017 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

Nagesh,
S/o Manohar,
Aged about 26 years,
R/o K.G. Srikantapura Village,
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bengaluru Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru – 562 162.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. H.S. Santhosh, Advocate)

AND

The State of Karnataka
By Madanayakana Halli,
P.S. Nelamangala,
Rep by SPP, High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
…Respondent
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP)

This criminal petition filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.291/2018 of Madanayakanahally Police Station,
Bengaluru District for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A and Section304B read with Section 34 of IPC
and Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.1 to enlarge him on bail in Cr.No.291/2018

registered by Madanayakanahally Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and Section304-B

read with 34 of SectionIPC.

2. The allegations against the petitioner is that

the petitioner married deceased Ashwini in the year

2011. It was inter religion marriage and they had two

children. On 25.05.2018 the deceased committed

suicide in the house of accused by hanging herself to a

ceiling fan. Mother of the deceased lodged complaint

against the petitioner and other accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that petitioner was arrested on 29.05.2018 till now, he

is in judicial custody. The marriage of the petitioner

with the deceased was taken place in the year 2011 and
3

two children were born out of their wedlock. As such,

allegation of demand for dowry does not arise. There

were no harassment to the deceased from the petitioner

and his parents. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are already

granted bail by the Sessions Court. Petitioner is

innocent and law abiding citizen. He has to take care of

his parent and two children. If he is enlarged on bail, he

is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed

on him by this Court. Hence, prayed to allow the

petition.

4. Per contra, learned HCGP contended that

there are sufficient materials to show the commission of

offence by the petitioner. The petitioner has illicit

relationship with the accused No.3. Hence, prayed to

dismiss the petition.

5. Upon hearing the arguments of both the

side, no doubt deceased Ashwini committed suicide on

25.05.2008. Prior to that there was no allegation against

the petitioner with regard to the harassment or demand
4

for dowry and marriage of deceased with accused was

love marriage which was held seven years ago. Though,

the statement of witness recorded, there is no direct

allegation against the petitioner and his family members

about the abetment of the suicide by the deceased. Now

the charge sheet has been filed after completing the

investigation. The alleged offences are not punishable

either with death or life imprisonment. The offence may

attract Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, considering the

facts and circumstances of the case, the petition

deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

The petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be

released on bail, in Crime No.291/2018 of

Madanayakanahally Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 498(A) and Section304(B) read with

Section 34 of IPC and 4 of D.P. Act, subject to the

following conditions:-

(i) Petitioner-accused No.1 shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of
5

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)
with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court or
Committal Court;

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly;

(iii) Petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction without prior permission of
the trial Court, and

(iv) Petitioner shall mark his attendance
before the Investigating Officer
between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on
every Monday for a period of six
months or till commencement of trial
whichever is earlier.

SD/-

JUDGE

JS/-

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.

STUDY REPORTS

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