SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri C V Kiran Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2014

Karnataka High Court Sri C V Kiran Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.254/2014

BETWEEN:

SRI.C.V.KIRAN KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

S/O H.S.CHIKKEGOWDA

RESIDING AT:

NO.715, 1ST MAIN ROAD,

NEW EXTENSION,

KRISHNARAJAPURAM,

BANGALORE-560 036.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHESHADRI N.S., ADV.)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

HALASUR GATE WOMEN POLICE STATION, HALASUR,

BANGALORE-02.

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BANGALORE.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR. NO.216/2013 OF HALASURGATE WOMEN P.S., BANGALORE CITY, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3 OF D.P.ACT.

2

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

This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506, of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered Crime No.216/2013.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that as per the complaint said to have been given by the wife of the present petitioner, that at the time of marriage her parents given ornaments and also gave ½ KG gold and also the silver ornaments and a site measuring 30 X 40 feet. It is further alleged in the complaint that there afterwards the husband and other family members of her husband started giving ill-treatment to her demanding more dowry amount and they were scolding her in filthy language and they have also assaulted her. 3

She has also mentioned in her complaint that on three occasions i.e., 19.11.2013, 25.11.2013 and 27.11.2013 the petitioner, father-in-law and mother-in-law picked up quarrel and also assaulted with club. Hence, she lodged the complaint to take action against her husband and other family members. On the basis of the said complaint case has been registered for the alleged offence.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the wound certificate. Perusing the wound certificate, it is issued from Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, date is mentioned as 04.12.2013. Perusing this certificate it is pertaining to the complainant but the date of examination is mentioned as 02.12.2013 4

whereas the allegations on three occasions that she has been harassed and assaulted on 19.11.2013, 25.11.2013 and 27.11.2013. Therefore, it supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this has been obtained only to suit the case of the prosecution. Perusing the bail petition, it is contended that false allegations are made against the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Accused Nos.2 to 5 have already been granted with bail. The alleged offence is also triable by the Magistrate Court and it is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. By imposing reasonable conditions the present petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the DP Act, registered in respondent police station Crime No.216/2013 subject to the following conditions:

5

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.25,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, whenever called for.

iv. The petitioners to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of copy of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

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