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

Ganesha And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|13 November, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7199/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Ganesha S/o Siddaraju, Aged about 19 years, 2. Nandini W/o Siddaraju, Aged about 38 years, Both are R/at Anandanagara, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangaluru Rural District-562123. …Petitioners (By Sri.A.N.Radhakirshna, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, R/by Nelamangala Rural Police Station, Rep. By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru-560001.
2. Smt.Kirani K W/o Shivakumar, Aged about 23 years, House Wife, R/at Anandanagara, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District-562123. ... Respondents (By Sri.Rohith B.J., HCGP for R-1; R-2 served) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.145/2019 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the notice issued to the complainant has been served but she remained absent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the first respondent-State. Perused the records.
3. The petitioners are arraigned as accused Nos, 2 and 3 in Cr.No.145/2019 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station, Bangalore District for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
4. A lady by name Smt.Kirani K lodged a complaint against the petitioners and others stating that, she has married one Shivkumar on 17.09.2018 much against the wish of his family members. In this context, it is alleged that on 05.08.2019 at about 5.00 p.m., all the accused persons started abusing the complainant in filthy language referring to her caste and prevented her from going to any temple. This was actually witnessed by one Mohammed Pillogovi Sabru and his wife Syed Bee.
5. On careful perusal of the complaint averments itself, who actually abused the complainant is not specifically stated. As such, omnibus statement made against all the accused persons. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be accepted unless it is specifically stated who actually abused the complainant amongst the accused persons. Further there is no specific abusive words in any public place. It is very vague allegations made in the complaint. Further added to the above, the incident occurred on 05.08.2019 but complaint lodged on 26.08.2019 much after long time i.e., after 21 days from the incident. Therefore, considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case and the other IPC offences are not seriously punishable, in view of the said ambiguity, the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners (accused Nos.2 and 3) shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Cr.No.145/2019 of Nelamangala Rural Police Station, Bengaluru for the alleged offences subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute their personal bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in hampering the investigation and tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and they shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission of the I.O., till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in fifteen days i.e.,on any Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-
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

Ganesha And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
13 November, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra