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

Sri B Gopal vs State By Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|29 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5476/2019 BETWEEN:
1 SRI. B. GOPAL S/O. B. SUNKANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 2 SRI. B. BHIMESH S/O. B. SUNKANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 3 SRI. RAVI KUMAR S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4 SMT. B. RAMALAMMA W/O. B. SUNKANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.113-7, 2ND ‘B’ CROSS, ‘C’ BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 092 ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI. UMASHANKAR M.N., ADV.] AND:
STATE BY KARNATAKA BY KODEGEHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 092 REP. BY LEARNED SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 009 … RESPONDENT [BY SRI. HONNAPPA, HCGP] THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.PC, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR. NO.92/2019 OF KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 498-A, 504 AND 506 R/W. SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners are arraigned as Accused Nos.1 to 4 by the respondent-Police in Crime No.92/2019 on the complaint lodged by a lady by name Padma, claiming herself to be wife of Accused No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case as devolved from the first information report is that complainant has been residing in the house of Accused since sixteen years. The Accused No.1 and his wife were issueless. Therefore, with consent, complainant lived as wife of Accused No.1 and she became pregnant and she begot two children and they were all living together. Thereafter, wife of the first petitioner also got test tube baby and thereafter it appears some differences arose between the petitioners and the victim. In this context, it is stated that they threw out that lady from the house and thereafter she was not allowed to talk with her children etc. It is alleged that she was threatened with dire consequences.
4. In the above facts and circumstances, there is no physical damage occurred. It is seriously contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no such legal relationship between petitioner No.1 and victim. Inspite of that, with consent, petitioner No.1 had relationship with victim. In my opinion, this is a fit case where parties can explore the possibilities of settlement amongst themselves. If the petitioners are not given anticipatory bail, there will be bleak chances of compromise between the parties. Therefore, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is scope for compromise between the parties.
5. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No.92/2019 of Kodigehalli Police Station, 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 each of them shall execute their respective personal bonds for a sum of Rs.50,000/- 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 or 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 of Bengaluru District without prior permission of the Court, 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 between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer till filing of final report or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-
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 B Gopal vs State By Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
29 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra