SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Guru Prasad R vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 June, 2018

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3774 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

Sri. Guru Prasad R
S/o Ramachandra,
Aged about 33 years
R/at Rajaghatta Road,
Gavenhally,
Hassan Taluk-573201 …PETITIONER

(By Sri. Aruna Shyam M, Adv.,)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
Through Hassan Womens Police Station,
Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001
… RESPONDENT
(By Sri. S.Vishwa Murthy, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.103/2017 of Hassan Women P.S., Hassan District for
the offence punishable under Section 498A, 448, 376, 504,
307 R/w 34 of IPC.
-2-

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by accused no.1 seeking

regular bail in Cr.No.103/2017 registered under Section

498A, 448, 376, 506, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent.

3. Learned High Court Government Pleader

has not filed any Statement of Objections, but has orally

opposed the petition.

4. FIR is registered based on the complaint

lodged by Smt. Shruthi. D. In the complaint it is alleged

that she married the petitioner on 26.01.2017. After the

marriage she was residing with the petitioner and his

mother-shivamma, elder brother-Mohan Kumar D.C @

Madhusudhan, elder sister-Chitralekha w/o
-3-

Chandrashekhar.N and her husband-Chandrashekara.

After the marriage she was ill-treated and harassed in

the matrimonial home. It is specifically stated that the

petitioner and his mother and brothers demanded a

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as additional dowry and on this

account, she was subjected to repeated ill-treatment

and harassment in the matrimonial home and on

19.09.2017 all the above persons including the

petitioner tried to kill her by pressing a pillow on her

face.

5. In the complaint it is further alleged that

prior to the solemnization of her marriage, on

05.11.2016 the petitioner herein committed forceful

intercourse on her in her house.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that much earlier to the registration of the

instant First Information Report the mother of the

petitioner had lodged a missing complaint before
-4-

Hassan Extension Police and the same was numbered

as Cr.No.305/17. The petitioner was arrested in

Dharwad on 21.04.2018 and since then he is in Judicial

custody.

7. The complaint is lodged in respect of the

incident which is alleged to have taken place on

19.09.2017. The FIR is registered on 24.11.2017. There

is no explanation for the said delay. Even though it is

alleged that an attempt was made to smother the

deceased, there is no material to corroborate the said

allegation. The manner in which the allegations of rape

are directed itself indicates that the case has been filed

against the petitioner as a counterblast to the missing

complaint lodged by the mother of the petitioner.

8. Reading of the complaint indicates that the

complainant married the petitioner only on 26.01.2017,

she was a divorcee. Under the said circumstance, the

allegation made by her that petitioner herein committed
-5-

forceful intercourse on her on 05.11.2016 appears to be

highly improbable. There is nothing on record to

indicate that she had lodged any complaint regarding

the alleged incident dated 05.11.2016. Further, the

circumstances of her marriage with the petitioner does

not probabalise the theory of the payment of dowry

demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as alleged in the petition.

Even with regard to the incident of smothering, the

same is not corroborated by any medical evidence.

Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of

the case I am of the view it is not proper to extend the

custody of the petitioner by way of punishment.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

a) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on
bail on obtaining a personal bond in a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) with two sureties for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.

-6-

b) He shall appear before the Court as and
when required.

c) He shall not threaten or allure the
prosecution witnesses in whatsoever
manner.

d) He shall not get himself involved in any
similar offences.

e) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Trial Court without prior permission of
the Trial Court.

If any of these conditions are violated, the

prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the

bail.

SD/-

JUDGE

GH

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 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…

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh