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

Sri Amithchandra vs State Of Karnataka Tiptur Town

High Court Of Karnataka|12 December, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9103/2017 BETWEEN:
SRI AMITHCHANDRA S/O D.S. MAHESHCHANDRA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT SHREYAS, 1ST CROSS RAILWAY STATION ROAD GANDHINAGAR TUMAKURU – 572 101.
(BY SRI H.V. MANJUNATHA, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA TIPTUR TOWN POLICE STATION TUMAKURU DISTRICT BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.
... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.152/2017 OF TIPTUR TOWN P.S., TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 498A, 504, 34 OF IPC R/W SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 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 his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 504 r/w. 34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent police station Crime No.152/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, one Manjushree, wife of the petitioner herein lodged a complaint on 16.9.2017 at about 10.30 a.m. stating that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 6.7.2016 at Seetharamaiah Kalyana Mantapa, Tiptur. At that time, 30 grams of gold chain, 30 grams of gold bracelet and 10 grams of gold ring were given as dowry to the petitioner. She was also given 200 grams of gold ornaments. They lead marital life happily for 2 to 3 months and later the petitioner started harassing the complainant stating that she is not looking good and he married her with an intention that she may get Rs.50,000/- salary as well as gold items. Further it is alleged that the petitioner told the complainant that while returning after Deepavali she has to get gold chain from her mother, but she did not get the same, as such the petitioner did not talk to her and when questioned about that, he told that she was not looking good and if he would have married to any other girl, he would have got more dowry. Thereby, the petitioner harassed her physically and mentally. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the aforesaid offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, and other materials produced in the case.
5. No doubt, there are some allegations made in the complaint. But the petitioner denied all those allegations contending that he has been falsely implicated in the case. He is innocent and not involved in committing the said offences. He has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate Court. They are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, he can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.152/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and shall to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv. The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE SA
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

Sri Amithchandra vs State Of Karnataka Tiptur Town

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
12 December, 2017
Judges
  • Budihal R B