IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5331/2018
Ranjith L, S/o Lokesh,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at Gosaiah Gowda Street,
Rampal Road, Srirangapatna,
Mandya – 571438. …Petitioner
(By Sri M.Y.Srinivasan, Advocate)
State of Karnataka by
Women Police Station,
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.34/2018 of Women
Police Station, Mysuru City for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 326B, 323, 341, 504, 506 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:
The petitioner has been implicated for the offences
punishable under sections 498A, 326B, 323, 341, 504
and 506 of IPC in the case registered by the respondent
police in Crime No.34/2018.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The complainant is the wife of the petitioner.
It is stated in the complaint that because of differences
between them, she made a petition for divorce.
Whenever the complainant goes out of the house, the
petitioner waylays her on the road, abuses her in filthy
language, threatens to throw acid on her and upload
her photos for being viewed in social media.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues
that similar allegations were made against the petitioner
earlier and an FIR had been registered. The police filed
charge sheet which was registered as C.C.No.933/2015
in the Court of JMFC, Mandya. After the trial, the
petitioner was acquitted for the offence in the case. Now
the complainant – wife has resorted to making one more
complaint to gain sympathy. The allegations made in
the complaint are false. The petitioner is ready to abide
by any condition that the Court imposes on him and
therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted to him as he
has got threat of arrest.
5. The High Court Government Pleader opposes
grant of anticipatory bail.
6. On perusing the complaint it appears that
probably after acquittal of the petitioner in
C.C.No.933/2015, the petitioner might have resorted to
harassing his wife once again. The learned Sessions
Judge who decided the Criminal Miscellaneous
No.1125/2018, the petition filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C by the petitioner, has clearly observed that the
petitioner was acquitted in C.C.No.933/2015 because
the complainant turned hostile in order to buy peace. If
after disposal of the said criminal case, the petitioner,
appears to be harassing his wife again by maligning her
in public and putting a threat to throw acid on her, the
matter needs to be viewed seriously. He has to be
interrogated by the police. His custodial interrogation
may be necessary. I do not think that the complaint
contains false allegations. Anticipatory bail cannot be
Hence, petition is dismissed.