Karnataka High Court V Sreenivasa vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1501 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
R/A.DODDKARAKARNAKALAHALLI VILLAGE MURUGAMALLA HOBLI
CHINTAMANI TALUK – 563 125.
(BY SRI.ANAND.R.V., ADV.,)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KENCHARAHALLI POLICE STATION
CHINTAMANI TALUK – 563 125.
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.15/2014 OF KENCHANAHALLI P.S., CHICKBALLAPURA, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) OF IPC. 2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner – accused 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 arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC registered in the respondent – police station Crime No.15/2014.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are; that the complainant married the petitioner about 11 years back and they are blessed with two children. They were living cordially for about six months initially. After that accused started to pick up quarrel and did not provide necessities to the family and was scolding in filthy language and was under the influence of alcohol and was ill-treating the complainant physically and mentally. In this connection, Panchayath was also held and they advised to mend his behaviour. Inspite of that 3
on 20.01.2014, around 8.30 pm., accused after consuming alcohol picked up quarrel with the complainant and he pulled her hairs and assaulted her, kicked her and pushed out of his house. He also threatened the complainant with life and warned that she should not come back to his house. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered against the present petitioner.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner – accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are all false. The reason for difference of opinion between the couple is that the complainant wanted to take separate house nearer to her parents place and when the petitioner did not agree for the same, she has filed the false complaint making 4
false allegations. Learned counsel also made the submission that the petitioner never assaulted and never abused the complainant in filthy language and no such incident has taken place on the alleged date ie., 20.01.2014. Hence, he submitted by imposing the reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.
5. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the prosecution placed prima facie material. The allegations in the complaint goes to show that the petitioner was harassing and ill-treating the complainant and coming to the house in a drunken state. He also made the submission that even on the date of alleged incident he consumed alcohol and picked up quarrel with her and he pulled her hairs and he assaulted and kicked her and ultimately he has driven her out of the house. Learned counsel also made the submission that the statement of other witnesses also 5
goes to show about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to the complainant. He submitted that the matter is still under investigation and the present petitioner is not at all available before the Investigating Officer and he is absconded and hence, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, order passed by the lower Court and the bail application and other materials placed on record.
7. Perusing the complaint, serious allegations are made against the petitioner about the ill-treatment and harassment meted out by the complainant. But, in the bail petition, same has been denied by the petitioner and told that he did not oblige the complainant to take separate house nearer to the house of the parents that is the reason for the complainant to file the false complaint making this complaint against him. He has 6
also contended and undertaken in the bail petition that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. As per the averments made by the learned High Court Government Pleader, that the matter is under investigation and the present petitioner is not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation and to proceed with the further investigation of the matter. To secure the presence of the petitioner before the Investigating Officer and before the concerned Court, stringent conditions could be imposed and he can be admitted to bail. The offences alleged under Section 498A of IPC is triable by Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
8. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, petition is allowed. The respondent – police are directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC registered in the 7
respondent – police station Crime No.15/2014, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) with one solvent
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses
directly or indirectly.
(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for. (iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond, as well as the surety bond.