Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Mr Abinav Kumar vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|21 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 4548/2019 BETWEEN MR. ABINAV KUMAR S/O SUBHASH CHANDRA AGED 26 YEARS NO.23, 6TH CORSS 4TH MAIN, VINAYAKA LAYOUT DODANAKUNDI BENGALURU -560 037 PERMANENT ADDRESS DAKHIN GAON POST OFFICE WAZIRGANJ GAYA DISTRICT BIHAR - 805 131 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. SYED MANSOOR AHMED., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KAMALUDDIN, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAL POLICE STATION BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HONNAPPA, 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 NCR NO.637/2019 OF HAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss.376 AND 420 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner/accused has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the peculiar circumstance that, a lady by name Sunita Ghadai has lodged a complaint against the petitioner making certain allegations, which reads thus,-
“My name Sunita Ghadai staying in Sri. Manjunath Ladies PG and working as a Software Engineer at CGI, E-City. I met Abhinav Kumar in 2016 at Palle Technology in Bommanahalli. First we are just friends for two months. From February 24, 2016, we came close to each other. From August 4, 2016 we are in a physical relationship. Promising that he will marry me, on August 4, went to hotel beside more Marathalli and my consent. Till last to up. We are in to in physical relationship. But, he is not agree to me became he has a new relationship with another girl. Name is Soniya Agrawal that girl is very rich and she is his own caste. Now Abhinav is telling that he used me and he did time pass with me. I inform to his parents, but they are taking his side and they do not even listening me. If I asked to Abhinav them he was telling that he wants 20 lk dowry then he will marry to Abhinav Kumar. Kindly accept my request and do the needful.”
3. On the above allegations, the police have very peculiarly registered a case in NCR No.637/2019 and it is alleged that the police are calling the petitioner to the Police Station. In that context, the petitioner apprehends reasonably that the police may arrest him by registering a case under Section 376 or 420 of IPC, on the aforesaid specific allegations.
4. In the facts and circumstances, though the above said allegations may not attract Section 376 of IPC, but it attracts Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, there is every chance of the respondent-police registering a case against the petitioner for that offence. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner reasonably apprehends his arrest at the hands of the respondent-police. Hence, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as prayed for. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the respondent-Police is hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in connection with NCR No.637/2019, in the event of registering any case against the petitioner on the basis of the above said specific allegations under the provisions of Section 376 or 420 of IPC, on the following conditions:
i) In the event of his arrest by the respondent- police, the petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the respondent-Police.
ii) The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation and tamper the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Investigating Officer, till the investigation is completed and final report is filed.
KGR* Sd/-
JUDGE
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Mr Abinav Kumar vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
21 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra