SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Prashanth Kumar vs State By Rammurthynagar Ps on 21 April, 2014

Karnataka High Court Sri Prashanth Kumar vs State By Rammurthynagar Ps on 21 April, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2197/2014

BETWEEN:

Sri. Prashanth Kumar,

S/o. B. Rao,

Aged about 39 years,

R/at No.103, D block,

Vineyard Gardens,

Banasawadi,

Bangalore-560 043.

Occupation:

Associate Vice President,

MPHASIS PVT. LTD.,

Bagmany Software Technology Park, Marathhalli,

Bangalore .. PETITIONER (By Sri. Sudharshan. L, Adv.)

AND:

State by Rammurthynagar P.S.,

Bangalore,

Rep. by SPP, High Court,

Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) 2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr. No.94/2014 of Ramamurthy Nagar P.S., Bangalore City, pending on the file of the X Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore for the offence P/U/S 498(A) r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

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

This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No.94/2014.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that false allegations are made against the present petitioner and other accused persons stating that they were giving ill-treatment and harassment to the complainant demanding dowry amount from her. He himself has credited the amount into the account of the complainant amounting to Rs.11 lakhs and the documents itself shows that the petitioner never demanded dowry amount from the complainant. It is further submitted that other accused persons have been already granted with bail and by imposing conditions petitioner may be granted with anticipatory bail.

4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that the complainant has clearly mentioned in her complaint about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by the petitioner and his family members. The Investigating officer has recorded the statement of the mother of the complainant and also other witnesses 4

who have also stated in their statement about the ill- treatment given by the petitioner and his family members. The matter is still under investigation and at this stage, accused No.1 is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and other materials placed on record.

6. As per the allegations in the complaint, marriage of the complainant with the present petitioner is a love marriage and that 15 days after the marriage, petitioner started giving ill-treatment to the complainant on the ground that at the time of marriage, the complainant has not at all brought the dowry amount and started insisting her to bring dowry amount. There is also allegation in the complaint that the petitioner used to come to the house consuming alcohol and also had illicit intimacy with his fellow worker by name Regina Cynthia. However, in the bail petition it is stated 5

by the petitioner that all the allegations are false. Himself and his family members never insisted the complainant to bring dowry amount and that they have been falsely implicated in the case. He has also undertaken to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. It is also submitted that the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Even for crediting the amount into the account of the complainant, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in page No.4 of his petition. Looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-police are directed to release the petitioner- accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry 6

Prohibition Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No.94/2014, subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(ii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iii) He shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for.

(iv) He shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute personal bond and also surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp

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