SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Roshan Felix vs State Of Karnataka By on 3 September, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

CRL.P. NO. 5387/2019

BETWEEN

ROSHAN FELIX
S/O RATHNAKAR BANGERA
AGED 31 YEARS
R/AT. 49, 2ND CROSS
RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR
LAGGERE
BENGALURU – 560 032 … PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M.Y. SREENIVASAM., ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU – 560 041
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J., HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CR.NO.123/2019 OF THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.
376, 420, 498-A, 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF SectionIPC AND SEC. 3
AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (A1)

and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State.

Perused the records.

2. The private complaint lodged by the wife of

Accused No.1 has been registered in PCR No.334/2019.

The learned Magistrate has referred the said complaint

to the jurisdictional Police for investigation and report

under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. Accordingly, the police

have registered a case in Crime No.123/2019 for the

offences punishable under Sections 376, Section420, Section498A and

Section506 r/w. 34 of SectionIPC and Sections 3 Section4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

3. The allegations made against the petitioner

(A1) in brief are that, in the year 2014, the

complainant and Accused No.1 got married and for five

years they lived as husband and wife. Thereafter, the

petitioner (A1) has purchased a car and tempo traveller
3

in the name of the complainant by taking loan and he

has not repaid the said amount. Thereafter, the

petitioner (A1) at the instance of other accused, he

tried to marry Accused No.4 for the 2nd time, for the

reason that, the complainant is not good-looking, and

since the complainant did not agree for that, they

started ill-treating and harassing her.

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that, on

25.04.2019, the complainant has lodged a report before

the Basavanagudi Mahila Police Station and the same

has been registered in NCR No.63/2019. But, there are

no such allegations made in the private complaint,

before the Court. Perhaps, after taking assistance of

the counsel, the complaint has been drafted

incorporating the allegations. So far as the earlier

complaint is concerned, it is seen that in Crl. Misc.

No.4068/2019, all the accused were enlarged on

Anticipatory Bail.

5. Looking to the above said circumstances, it is

seen that there are no such allegations in the earlier
4

complaint, but later the complainant has made some

more allegations in the private complaint. Hence, this

Court has to test the veracity of the complaint

averments after the investigation of the matter by the

police. In the circumstances of the case, in my opinion,

the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory

bail, as prayed for. Hence, the following,-

ORDER

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the
petitioner (A1)-Roshan Felix shall be released on bail in
the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.
123/2019 of Thalghattapura Police Station, Bengaluru,
for the aforesaid offences, now pending on the file of
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural
District, subject to the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner (A1) shall surrender himself before
the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall
execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum
to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the
investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
5

iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and
he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and
when called for.

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of
Bengaluru District without prior permission, till the
charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months
whichever is earlier.

v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a
week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00
pm., before the concerned Investigating Officer for a
period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed,
whichever is earlier.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

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