Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Mohan vs Rashekar

High Court Of Karnataka|24 October, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6324/2017 BETWEEN:
Mohan S/o Muthappa Aged 36 years Occupation: Business R/at Nagegowda Badavane Kushalanagar Somwarpet Taluk Kodagu District-571 234. .. PETITIONER (By Sri B O Chandrashekar, Adv.) AND:
State of Karnataka by Kushalanagar Police Kodagu District Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.57/2017 of Kushalnagar P.S., Kodagu District for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 315, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 315, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3, 4 of D.P. Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.57/2017.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, made submission that looking to the prosecution material, earlier there was a complaint dated 2.7.2017, as per Annexure-F, wherein it was stated that there was difference of opinion between the complainant and her husband and therefore, she asked the police to advise her husband. Eleven days thereafter, the present complaint as per Annexure-A came to be filed making all these false allegations. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel that the other accused persons were already granted bail. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, made submission that the material goes to show that, at the time of marriage, Rs.5,00,000/- was given to the petitioner as dowry and being not satisfied with the same, he started giving ill treatment both physically and mentally to his wife (complainant). Serious allegations are made against the petitioner-accused No.1. He is required for recording of further evidence/custodial interrogation. Therefore, grant of bail to other accused persons is not helpful. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on the bail application.
6. Looking to the complaint averments, it is no doubt true that as per the complaint dated 2.7.2017, it was only mentioned that there was difference of opinion between the couple and police were requested to advise the petitioner. But looking to the subsequent complaint produced as per Annexure-B, there are allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.1 that Rs.5,00,000/- was given as dowry. But, even then, he started giving mental and physical torture to the complainant. The complaint averments goes to show that even there was termination of pregnancy because of harassment and ill treatment by the petitioner.
7. Looking to the complaint averments, there are serious allegations against the petitioner-accused No.1 about the ill treatment and harassment met out to the wife (complainant). The grant of bail to the other accused will not help the petitioner in view of the serious allegations made against him. Looking to the materials placed on record, custodial interrogation of accused No.1 is required in this case. Therefore, it is not the case for grant of bail.
Petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-
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

Mohan vs Rashekar

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
24 October, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B