SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

T. Vishnuvardhana Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2019

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2372/2019

Between:

T. Vishnuvardhana Reddy,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o T. Venkatarama Reddy,
R/at G-3, Faida Farms Apartment,
Belatturu Village,
Kadugodi,
Bengaluru – 560 067. … Petitioner

(By Sri M.T. Nanaiah, Senior Counsel for
Sri MRC Manohar, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka by,
Kadugodi Police Station,
Bengaluru,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.
No.292/2018 of Kadugodi Police Station, Bangalore City for the
offences p/u/s 304B and 498A of SectionIPC.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court, made the following:
2

ORDER

Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in

connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings

in Crime No.292/2018 for the offences punishable under

Sections 304B, Section498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the

informant who is the father of the deceased had lodged a

complaint stating that he had celebrated the marriage of

the deceased along with the petitioner on 26.02.2012. It is

stated that at the time of marriage, an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/- with 450 Gms. of gold was given as dowry.

It is alleged that the petitioner was misbehaving with the

daughter of the informant and there were allegedly

demands for additional dowry. It is stated that on

15.09.2018, petitioner and his wife had come to the house

of the informant and the petitioner is stated to have

demanded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards additional

dowry. It comes out that on 01.10.2018 information was
3

given to the informant that his daughter had died. On the

basis of the alleged incident, complaint was filed, FIR is

registered, investigation is complete and charge sheet has

been filed. It is stated that the petitioner has been in

custody since 09.03.2019 till date.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner submits that the version of the mother and

the sister of the deceased when their statements were

recorded during the inquest proceedings by the Tahsildar

are at variance with the version of the informant in the

present complaint. It is stated that before the Tahsildar no

allegations of harassment as regards dowry has been

made out, whereas in the present complaint by the

informant filed on 03.11.2018 allegations of harassment

in connection with the demands for dowry had been made

out. It is pointed out that proof of offence is a matter for

trial and the present proceedings cannot be treated to be

punitive in nature.

4

4. Taking note of the fact that the investigation is

complete and charge sheet is filed, question as to whether

the acts of harassment by the petitioner had led the

deceased to commit suicide is a matter to be proved

during trial. Taking note of the fact that the investigation

is complete and that the petitioner is an employee of John

F Welch Technology Centre and noting that the present

proceedings cannot be considered to be proceedings for

punishment, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

5. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the

petitioner under Sec. 439 of SectionCr.P.C. is allowed and the

petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.292/2018 for

the offences punishable under Sections 304B, Section498A of IPC

and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the

following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal
bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh
only) with one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

5

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for
the expeditious disposal of the trial.

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

(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

VP

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