SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ranjith L vs State Of Karnataka By on 20 August, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5331/2018

BETWEEN:
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)

AND

State of Karnataka by
Women Police Station,
Mysuru.
…Respondent
(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:
2

ORDER

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
3

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
4

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

granted.

Hence, petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NS/ssb

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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