SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Govindaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2019







S/o late Kempanna
Aged about 46 years
Residing at Shivaganga Layout,
Venugopala Nagar,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru – 560 079. … Petitioner

(By Sri P.M.Siddamallappa, Advocate)

State of Karnataka
Represented by Halasuru Gate Women’s
Police Station,
Bengaluru City,
Pin Code – 560 009.
By its SPP
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri. M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the

petitioner on bail in Crime No.27/2017
(C.C.No.2533/2008) of Halasur Gate Women Police
Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable
under Section 498A of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P

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


The present petition has been filed by the

petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

seeking release him on bail in Crime No.27/2007 of

Halasuru Gate Women’s Police Station

(C.C.No.2533/2008 on the file of VI Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru) for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Section

3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent-State.

3. On the basis of the complaint given by one

Smt.Gangamma, wife of petitioner/accused No.1, the

case has been registered. In the complaint, it is alleged

that the accused persons after the marriage on

05.12.2000, started ill-treating and harassing the

complainant. As she was carrying, she came to her

parents house. She gave birth to a male child. After

five months, she had gone to her matrimonial home, at

that time also, the petitioner/accused repeated their

harassment and ill-treatment and they have also

assaulted the complainant and as such, case was

registered in the above said crime. It is the submission

of the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier, the

petitioner/accused No.1 was released on regular bail by

the trial Court and when the matter was posted for trial,

some conciliation proceedings took place. The

petitioner/accused No.1 is working as a Conductor.

Because of unavoidable circumstances, he did not

attend the Court. Even when he sent messages for the

learned counsel to appear on behalf of him, there was a

communication gap, as such, his absence was noted

and trial Court issued NBW and on execution of NBW,

he has been taken to custody. He further submitted

that the petitioner/accused No.1 is ready and willing to

proceed with trial. If the petitioner/accused No.1 is

kept in custody, his valuable rights are to be effected

and it amounts to punishment before the trial. He

further submitted that he is ready to abide by any

conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to offer

surety. He is ready to attend regularly before the trial

Court till the trial is concluded. On these grounds,

learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the

petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on


4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the

complaint was registered in the year 2007 and

thereafter, the petitioner/accused No.1 has been

released on bail and more than 10 years, he has not

appeared before the Court and continuously remained

absent. The Court below without there being any

alternative has issued NBW and taken him to custody.

Otherwise, the trial will not be concluded. He further

submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is in the

habit of avoiding the trial and he will not be present

before the Court as and when he is called. On these

grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.

5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the records.

6. As could be seen from the records, the

alleged offence has taken place on 11.10.2007 and

a case has been registered in this behalf and thereafter,

charge sheet has also been filed. This is the oldest case

on the file of the said Court and even records also go to

show that the petitioner/accused No.1 has continuously

remained absent and the Court has also taken various

steps to serve notice and thereafter, it has issued the

warrant and warrant has been executed and he has

been taken to custody it shows that there are lapses on

the part of the petitioner/accused No.1 in attending the

Court. When he has been released on bail, the duty is

cast upon the petitioner/accused No.1 to attend the

Court regularly and he should not hurdle the trial and

inconvenience to the Court. Be that as it may, the

alleged offences are not punishable with death or

imprisonment for life. Already, the petitioner/accused

No.1 is in custody for more than 5 months and he is

undertaking that he will regularly attend the Court.

He will not jump the bail. Under the said facts and

circumstances, I feel that custodial interrogation of the

petitioner/accused No.1 is not necessary till the trial is

concluded. If one more opportunity is given, no

prejudice is going to cause to the complainant as well as

to the prosecution. It will help the Court to proceed

with trial.


7. In that light, petition is allowed

Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on

bail in Crime No.27/2007 (C.C.No.2533/2008) of

Halasuru Gate Women’s Police Station, Bengaluru for

the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and

under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act subject

to the following conditions:-

1. Petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two
lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.

2. He shall be regular in attending the trial till the
trial is concluded.

3. He shall not tamper the prosecution evidence in
any manner directly or indirectly and shall not
indulge in similar type of criminal activities.

4. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court
without prior permission.


5. He shall mark his attendance once in a month
between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the
jurisdictional police.

6. If he remains absent during the course of trial, the
trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail and take
him to custody till trial is concluded.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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