Karnataka High Court Sri.Ajinkya @ Anjikya vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2014 :BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2766/2014
SRI. AJINKYA @ ANJIKYA,
S/O. MAHADEV MALKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT PLOT NO.303, 3RD FLOOR,
D.C.ALEGANEE, NAGLA PARK,
KOLHAPUR – MAHARASHTRA. … PETITIONER (BY SHRI.SRINAND PACHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH P.S.I MALMARUTHI POLICE STATION, NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE – 560 001. … RESPONDENT (BY SHRI.B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.89/2014 OF MALAMARUTI P.S.BELGAUM, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 307, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the State.
2. The petitioner had, on an earlier occasion, approached this Court along with his mother seeking the relief of bail in the following background. It transpires that, the petitioner herein had married the complainant’s daughter on 11.07.2013 . It is alleged that, at that time, the complainant had provided dowry of 90 grams of gold, one kilogram of silver, apart from clothes and cash. The cash was said to have been paid in installments. Though, this was not recorded in the ‘yadi’ the complainant’s daughter had hardly stayed for a month with her husband and she had returned to her maternal home on the allegations of constant harassment for dowry. Thereafter, it transpires that, there was an attempt at reconciliation. Though she had returned to the house of the petitioner, it is stated that the complainant received a phone call of the victim having consumed phenyl. Then she was rushed to the complainant’s house. The complainant’s son had questioned as to why the victim had not been admitted to a 3
hospital at Sholapura and was brought to their house at Belgaum. At this she is said to have been assaulted by the petitioner. Thereafter, she was admitted to a hospital at Belgaum. In this background, a case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 504, 506 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code, apart from Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The petitioner and his mother having approached this Court, this Court found that the offences alleged were all bailable, except for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but had granted bail to the mother, while withholding the relief insofar as the petitioner was concerned, awaiting the medical report of the alleged victim and granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the vacation bench. Hence, this petition.
4. It is now stated that the medical report would indicate that there was only a simple injury which has been allegedly caused by the petitioner. Therefore, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted. 4
5. Accepting the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of `30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a solvent surety for a like sum subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses;
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer;
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly and;.
(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.