SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sidram S/O Siabanna Matakikar And … vs State Through Grameen P S on 10 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200094/2020

Between:

1. Sidram S/o Saibanna Matakikar
Age: 70 years, Occ: Nil
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland
Dist. Kalaburagi-585302

2. Mallikarjun S/o Sidramappa Matakikar
Age: 50 years, Occ: Corporation employee
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland
Dist. Kalaburagi-585302

3. Chandrasha S/o Sidramappa Matakikar
Age: 47 years, Occ: Govt. servant
R/o Aland, Tq. Aland
Dist. Kalaburagi-585302

4. Mahadevi W/o Mallikarjun Matakikar
Age: 44 years, Occ: Household
R/o Bhim Nagar Aland, Tq. Aland
Dist. Kalaburagi-585302

5. Prema W/o Chandrasha Matakikar
Age: 42 years, Occ: Corporation employee
R/o Bhim Nagar Aland, Tq. Aland
Dist: Kalaburagi-585302
Crl.P.No.200094/2020
2

6. Priya W/o Hanamanth Matakikar
Age: 40 years, Occ: Corporation employee
R/o Bhim Nagar Aland, Tq. Aland
Dist. Kalaburagi-585302
… Petitioners

(By Sri Basavaling Nasi, Advocate)

And:

State through Grameen P.S.
Kalaburagi,
Represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
At Bench-585102
… Respondent

(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow this petition and order to release
the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the
offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 504, 506,
498A, 494 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and
bearing C.C.No.6176/2018 of Grameen Police Station,
Kalaburagi, pending on the file of V Addl. JMFC at
Kalaburagi.

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

ORDER

The petitioners have sought for anticipatory bail

under section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’)
Crl.P.No.200094/2020
3

in C.C.No.6176/2018 pending on the file of V

Additional JMFC at Kalaburagi for the offences

punishable under sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 498A,

494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for

brevity referred to as ‘IPC’) and sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity

referred to as ‘D.P.Act’).

2. The present petitioners are accused nos.2, 3,

5, 7, 9 and 10 respectively in C.C.No.6176/2018

pending in the Court of learned V Additional JMFC,

Kalaburagi. The said criminal case was initiated by

the complainant Smt. Shobha through a private

complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C. in

P.C.No.365/2017. She has alleged in the said

complaint that all the ten accused therein including

the present petitioners have performed the second

marriage to the accused no.1, though the complainant

being the legally wedded first wife of the accused no.1
Crl.P.No.200094/2020
4

was still living and further all the accused coming to

the house of the complainant, who at that time was

living in her parents’ village, abused her in filthy

language and assaulted her and forcibly were taking

the daughter of the complainant with them. However,

the complainant was rescued by the people in the

village. The trial Court has registered the said case in

Register No.III against all the ten accused for the

offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504,

506 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that no specific allegations are made against the

present petitioners and all the allegations are only

against accused no.1, the husband of the

complainant. He further submits that the complainant

herself had no interest in prosecuting the complaint,

as such, it was once dismissed for non-prosecution,

however, was restored later on. He also submits that
Crl.P.No.200094/2020
5

apprehending their arrest, the petitioners did not

appear before the Magistrate even after receipt of the

summons by the Court.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader, in

his argument, submitted that the petitioners though

were already served with the summons by the trial

Court nearly a year back, but have remained absent,

as such, warrant has been issued against them. In

the said circumstance, they do not deserve to be

granted the relief as prayed.

5. A perusal of the complaint, at this stage,

would go to show that the allegation made against the

present petitioners is performing the second marriage

of accused no.1 during the lifetime of his first wife,

who is the complainant. It is also alleged in the

complaint that on 25.05.2017 at about 5.00 p.m. all

these petitioners, joined by other accused, went to the
Crl.P.No.200094/2020
6

house of the complainant and apart from assaulting

her also abused her in filthy language and threatened

to her life.

6. Irrespective of the nature of the allegation,

what is required to be seen at this stage in the

present petition is the conduct of the petitioners. A

perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet of the

trial Court, in this matter, which is placed before this

Court for its perusal by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, at this stage would go to show that much

earlier to the date on 10.04.2019 the present

petitioners were served with the summons by the trial

Court. Despite the same, they failed to appear before

the trial Court, as such, the trial Court has been

issuing the warrants against these petitioners. This

clearly go to show that despite the trial Court making

a sincere effort, even by issuing warrant for nearly a

year, the petitioners/ accused have managed to stay
Crl.P.No.200094/2020
7

away from the proceedings in the Court below. As

such, the submission made by the learned High Court

Government Pleader that the petitioners are

absconding and it would be difficult for securing them

cannot be ignored at this stage.

As such, I am of the view that the petitioners be

directed to surrender before the Magistrate within ten

days from today and file an application for the regular

bail and which application be disposed of by the

concerned Magistrate purely on its merit without

delay.

Ordering accordingly, the petition stands

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
swk

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