Karnataka High Court Nanda Kishore Rauniyar vs State Of Karnataka By on 27 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2821 OF 2014 Between:

Nanda Kishore Rauniyar,

S/o.Late Lakshmi Prasad Rauniyar, Aged about 67 years,

Residing at No.640/24,

Arniko Marg, Batlis Putali,

Post Box No.7720, Katmandu,

Nepal – 007 720. …Petitioner (By Shri: Kemparaju, Advocate)

And:

State of Karnataka

By Vivekanagara Police Station,

Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building,

Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondent (By Shri: K.R. Keshava Murthy, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to release / enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.16/2014 of Viveknagar Police Station, Bangalore City, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

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

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

2. The petitioner is a 67 year old man and he is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that the allegations are made by the father of the deceased daughter-in-law, who is said to have committed suicide on account of constant harassment. On the face of it, it is contended that the petitioner along with wife are residing 3

at Katmandu in Nepal and that they have nothing to do with the marital life of their son and the deceased daughter-in-law. It is on vague allegations that the petitioner has been roped in along with his wife. They had approached the Court below seeking bail and the Court below while considering the fact that his wife was a woman aged about 57 had thought it fit to grant bail, but rejected the bail application of the petitioner on the ground that charge sheet had not been filed and that the matter was under investigation.

4. It is not seriously disputed that the petitioner is a resident of Katmandu in Nepal, therefore, on the face of it, the very presence of the petitioner not being made out at the time of the incident or even prior to the incident, the petitioner having a hand in the alleged commission of the offence is doubtful. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail and he shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a self-bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with a 4

solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the following conditions. (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.

(iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KM