Allowed

Dayanand v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2020CRL.P/5610/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka enlarged the petitioner on bail in a case involving offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 IPC, finding no apprehension of witness interference.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for like sum, subject to conditions of appearing in court and not leaving territorial limits without permission.

Dayanand Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶4

CRL. P. NO. 5610/2020

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

DAYANAND S/O LATE PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO.11, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR WEBSTAT SCHOOL, ITTAMADU, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560085. PRESENTLY R/AT RUDRANAHALLI VILLAGE, TALLALURU GATE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.GIRISH R, ADVOCATE )

¶7

AND

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAMANKERE ACHUKUTTU PS, NOW REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶9

... RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.20/2019 OF CHANNAMANAKERE ACHUKATTU P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE

¶12

¶13

PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 306 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/ PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for Respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶17

The earlier petition filed by petitioner (Accused No.1) under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Criminal Petition No.7440/2019 has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 03.02.2020. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is laid against the petitioner under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of IPC.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner and the deceased had married in Nimishamba Temple situated at Rajarajeshwari Nagar. After the marriage, petitioner is alleged to have been ill-treating and harassing the deceased mentally and physically and demanding her to bring money from her

¶19

¶20

parents, and being unable to bear the ill-treatment, the deceased is alleged to have committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan on 23.01.2019 in the house where both the deceased and the petitioner (Accused No.1) were living. The deceased has left behind a death note implicating the petitioner (Accused No.1) and Accused No.2, as the persons responsible for her death.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner (Accused No.1) submits that, the deceased was earlier married to one Mohan and through him, she had a son aged 10 years. Their marriage was not dissolved. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint that the petitioner has subjected the married woman to cruelty attracting offence under Section 498A is not made-out and further he submits that, except the death note there is no other material to show that the petitioner (Accused No.1) has instigated or abetted the crime.

¶22

Having regard to the nature of allegations,

¶23

there is no apprehension of the petitioner (Accused No.1) either threatening the witnesses or hampering

¶24

¶25

the trial. Further, on going through the material on record, it is noticed that, except the death note, there is no other material to show the immediate provocation or instigation by the petitioner. In the death note except stating that the deceased is taking extreme step of suicide because of harassment by Accused Nos. 1 & 2, there is no mention of specific instance driving the deceased to commit suicide. As the entire case of the petitioner depends upon proof of death note, there cannot be any apprehension of the petitioner interfering with the said evidence. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the other facts and circumstances found in the charge sheet, in my view, the custody of the petitioner is not required to be extended solely by way of punishment. In the said circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶27

a) Petitioner (Accused No.1)-Dayanand is ordered to be enlarged on bail on he furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)

¶28

¶29

with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶30

b) Petitioner shall appear before the court on every hearing dates without fail.

¶31

¶32

c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

¶33

d) Petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

KGR*

Dayanand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayanand v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

K. v. Nagaraj @ Swastik Nagaraj Vs State by Lokayuktha Police

Smt. Anjana a Shanthaveer Vs Sri. Babu Rao Chunchansur

Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Premchand Jain @ Prem Vs State of Karnataka