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

State By Thyamagondalu Police Station

High Court Of Karnataka|19 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1454/2019 BETWEEN:
NAVEENKUMAR, S/O HANUMANTHRAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A TADSIGHATTA VILLAGE, THYAMAGONDLU HOBALI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 16. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.L.MOHANMAIYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY THYAMAGONDALU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. BENGALURU.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR), HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HONNAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.06/2019 REGISTERED BY THYAMAGONDLU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 313, 498-A, 504 AND 323 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The complainant by name Dakshayini, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner lodged a complaint on 1.2.2019 stating that she was given in marriage to the petitioner in the year 2010. After the marriage she lived happily for some time. But for a long time, they were not blessed with any child. Therefore, the petitioner and his family members started ill-treating and harassing her and threatening her with dire consequences of killing her. In this context, it is also alleged that she was forcibly inseminated by them and they also got her aborted two times. In this context, it is also alleged that they have seriously ill-treated in a cruel manner and also assaulted her.
3. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the father and mother of the petitioner and they have already been released on bail. The offences alleged against the accused are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. The counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that on 16.1.2019, a notice was issued to the petitioner calling her to come back to the house of the petitioner for the purpose of performing her conjugal obligations. She has neither given any reply nor come back to the house of the petitioner and presently she is residing in her parents house. After long lapse of time on 1.2.2019 the complaint came to be lodged.
4. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations are required to be established during the course of full dressed trial. There is no reason as to why the petitioner and his family members inseminated her twice and got her aborted. Whether the complaint is a counter blast to the notice issued by the husband has to be tested during the course of trial. Under the above said circumstances, this is a fit case where this Court can exercise the discretion to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
5. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.6/2019 of Thyamagondlu Police Station, Bengaluru District, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 313, 498-A, 504 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC., subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the I.O. within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when called for and co-operate with the investigation.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction without prior permission, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in fifteen days on every 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 *alb/-.
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

State By Thyamagondalu Police Station

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
19 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra