SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Dimpal K. A. vs State Of Karnataka on 15 July, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2615/2019
BETWEEN:
Sri Dimpal K.A
S/o. Sri.Aiyappa K.B,
Aged about 28 years,
R/of Bengoor Village,
Cherambane Post,
Madikeri Taluk,
Kodagu District-571 201.
… Petitioner
(By Sri C.R.Gopala Swamy, Advocate)

AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By Bhagamandala Police
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001

2. Smt. M.D.Mouna
D/o. Sri M.S.Dara,
W/o. Sri K.A. Dimpal,
R/at Makkanduru Village
Post, Madikeri Taluk,
Kodagu District – 571 201.
… Respondents
(By Sri K.P.Yoganna, HCGP)
2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of this arrest
in Crime No.84/2018 of Bhagamandala Police Station
Kodagu for the offences punishable under Sections
341,Section323, Section504, Section506(2) Section498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

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

ORDER

The petitioner has filed the petition seeking to be

enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest with respect to

the proceedings in Crime No.84/2018 registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 341, Section323, Section504,

Section506(2) and Section498A read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that

respondent No.2 has filed PCR No.5/2018. It is stated

that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married

on 17.05.2018. It is further alleged that the petitioner

was not doing his work properly and he used to

consume alcohol and quarrel with respondent No.2,

who is the complainant. It is further alleged that the
3

complainant’s father had purchased many items of daily

use for the family. It is further alleged that the

petitioner has pledged complainant’s gold chain in the

bank and other allegations have also been made against

the petitioner. In the light of difference of opinion

between the complainant and the petitioner, they had

approached the District Legal Services Authority and

counseling is stated to have been done. It is further

stated that on 19.11.2018, they had appeared before

the same Authority and the petitioner was directed to

hand over the belongings to the complainant. It is only

subsequently that PCR was filed and the matter was

referred to the Police authority for investigation under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the FIR came to be lodged.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that

respondent No.2 was married to the petitioner on

17.05.2018 and due to difference of opinion amongst

the spouses they approached the District Legal Services
4

Authority. It is further alleged that the complaint is

malafide and has been filed in the light of the difference

in opinion. It is further stated that the petitioner would

cooperate with the investigation, and no case is made

out for custodial interrogation.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader

however, opposes grant of anticipatory bail and states

that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be

required.

5. Taking note of the fact that the differences of

opinion have cropped up with their relationship within

four months of their marriage and also that the

petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation,

taking note of the contents of PCR, there is force in the

submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that

custodial interrogation as such may not be required. It

is noticed that Sessions Court has rejected the
5

application of the petitioner, while enlarging the other

accused on anticipatory bail.

6. In light of the observations made above and

looking into the nature of offences alleged, the case is

made out for enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory

bail in Crime No.84/2018 for the offences punishable

under Sections 341, Section323, Section504, Section506(2) and Section498A read

with Section 34 of IPC, subject to the following

conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall appear in person
before the Investigating Officer in
connection with Crime No.84/2018
within 15 days from the date of release
of the order and shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.

6

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way, any
witness.

(iii) The petitioner shall physically present
himself and mark his attendance
before the concerned Station House
Officer once in week between 10.00
a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the
final report.

(iv) In the event of change of address, the
petitioner to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.

(v) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioner, shall
result in cancellation of bail.

Any observation made herein shall not be taken as

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

SD/-

JUDGE

GJM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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