SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri G N Prasad vs State Of Karnataka on 5 March, 2020

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1003/2020

BETWEEN:

SRI G.N.PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O GANGANARASAIAH,
R/O NEAR OLD CAUVERY SCHOOL
II CROSS, SHANTHINAGAR,
TUMAKURU TOWN AND DISTRICT.
PIN 572 102 …PETITIONER

(BY SRI M.L.JAYARAMU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TUMAKURU WOMEN P.S.
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU CITY 560 009. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI M.DIWAKAR, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of arrest in Cr.No.01/2020 registered by women
Police Station, Tumakuru for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 342, 307, 504 and 506 read
with 34 of IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
2

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

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

Perused the materials on record.

2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in

Crime No.1/2020 of Tumakuru Women Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

342, 307, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the

complainant Smt.Nalina K.T. is the wife of the

petitioner. Their marriage took place about three years

prior to the incident. After the marriage, it is alleged

that the accused persons started demanding more

dowry and in that context, they were illtreating and

harassing the victim. Finally, on 03.01.2020, it is
3

alleged that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 caught hold of her

and accused No.2 attempted to strangulate the neck of

the victim. By that time, the mother and brother of the

victim came to the house and rescued the victim. She

went to the hospital and took treatment. Of course, the

injury certificate shows that she suffered simple injuries

to her neck and other parts of the body.

4. The accused persons have in fact approached

the Principal Sessions Judge, Tumakuru for grant of

bail in Crl.Misc.No.21/2020. The learned Judge by

order dated 13.01.2020 released accused Nos.2 to 4 on

anticipatory bail and insofar as the petitioner herein,

the Court has rejected the bail petition.

5. The above said factual aspects disclose that

accused No.2 has actually made attempt to strangulate

the neck of the victim when accused Nos.1, 3 and 4

have caught hold of the complainant. Accused No.1
4

stands on the same footing as that of accused Nos. 3

and 4.

6. Be that as it may, this is a matrimonial dispute.

If the accused persons are sent to jail, the possibility of

compromise between the parties would get bleach. The

parties may explore the possibility of settlement at any

point in time even during the pendency of the case

between them. It is stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 are

government servants and accused No.1 is also doing

business. Therefore, there is no chance of the petitioner

fleeing away from justice.

7. Looking in the above angle, I am of the opinion

that if the petitioner is granted bail, it will facilitate the

parties to explore the possibility of settlement between

themselves. Hence the following order:

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the

petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his

arrest in connection with Crime No.1/2020 of Women
5

Police Station, Tumakuru subject to the following

conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before
the Investigating Officer within Ten days from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order and he shall execute personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the
like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned
Investigating Officer.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering
the investigation or tampering the prosecution
witnesses.

iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the
investigation, and he shall appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when called for.

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of
Investigating Officer without prior permission,
till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of
three months whichever is earlier.

6

v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once
in a week i.e, on every Sunday between 10.00
am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating
Officer for a period of two months or till the
charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Akc

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