SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shaktivelu M vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2014

Karnataka High Court Shaktivelu M vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.3554/2014

BETWEEN:

Shaktivelu. M,

Aged about 24 years,

S/o. Sri. Muniswamy,

R/at No.517, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross,

Ambedkar Nagara,

Old Byappanahalli,

Bangalore-560 070. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. Saravana. S, Adv.)

AND:

State of Karnataka,

Rep by its Station House officer,

Byappanahalli Police Station,

Bangalore-560 070. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. B.J. Eswarappa, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No. 179/2014 of Byappanahalli P.S., Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

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

2

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.179/2014.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.

4. Looking to the allegations in the complaint lodged by one Smt. Anitha, it is stated that on 31.5.2011, she married to Shaktivelu, the petitioner herein and it was the love marriage. They lead happy marital life for three years and since one year, the petitioner started giving mental and physical ill treatment to her. Even then, she was leading her 3

life. Out of the wedlock, they got two children. It is alleged that on 29.12.2013, the petitioner took the complainant to his mother’s place and assaulted her causing bleeding injuries. His family members advised and compromised them in the matter. There afterwards, they were leading life together for one month. Again the petitioner started giving ill treatment. On 27.4.2014, the petitioner and all the accused persons quarreled with the complainant and returned to home. On 28.4.2014, the petitioner came home and took away his son under the pretext that he was taking him to a shop and that he did not return for more than five hours. She tried to contact by calling him more than 20 occasions, but he did not attend to her calls. She went to his place with her sister and mother and took back her son. On 29.4.2014, when the complainant was sleeping in the house along with her children, at 1.30 a.m., the petitioner came to home and knocked the door. When she opened the door, the street lights were not working and that the petitioner, Vinod and Vadivelu poured kerosene on her and attempted to kill her. When sister of the complainant wake 4

up and screamed, hearing the same, all the persons ran away.

5. Looking to the very allegations in the complaint, they go to show that so far as the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC is concerned, the petitioner has not lit fire to her nor she has sustained injuries on her body. It is her case that they ran away. Regarding the allegation of ill treatment is concerned, the petitioner has denied the said allegation. On the contrary, it is the case of the petitioner that his sister also lodged a complaint against the complainant herein and the case has been registered in crime No.218/2014 for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

6. Therefore, looking to all these materials and as the alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and as the petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court, by imposing reasonable conditions, he can be admitted to bail.

5

7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.179/2014, subject to following conditions:-

I. The petitioner shall execute bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and shall offer a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.

II. The petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. III. The petitioner shall attend the concerned Court regularly.

SD/-

JUDGE

Cs/-

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