Allowed

Sri Hanumantharaju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Mar 2021CRL.P/1090/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with matrimonial cruelty and abetting suicide. The court directed the trial court to release the petitioner subject to personal bond, sureties, and conditions preventing tampering and jurisdictional departure.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail for Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions against tampering and unauthorized departure from jurisdiction.

Sri Hanumantharaju Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1090 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O DODDAIAH R/O BALLAGERE, DODDABELE BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 132.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI H.L.JAYARAMU, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THYAMAGONDLU POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.24/2020 REGISTERED BY THYAMAGONDLU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) AND 306 OF IPC.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting bail in Crime No.24/2020 registered by the Thyamagondlu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of one Bylappa, the father of the deceasedShantha Kumari has filed complaint before the Police on 02.04.2020 alleging that his daughter given in marriage with accused which was held at Bengaluru in a grand manner. The marriage was held on 15.12.2019. The accused were harassing his daughter physically and mentally. Therefore, she committed suicide on 02.04.2020. After registering the case, the accused was arrested and remanded to the judicial custody and he has been remanded to the judicial custody. He has been approached to the Sessions Court for grant of bail which came to be rejected and hence, he is before this Court.

¶21

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and absolutely, there is no material to attract Section 306 of IPC to show any harassment suffered by the deceased in the hands of the accused. Absolutely there is no specific allegation against accused persons except a omnibus statement there was harassment and accused persons abated the deceased to commit suicide. No material is placed on record to show how they abated the deceased to commit suicide. Accused No.2-mother of accused No.1 has already been granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.4411/2020. Hence, prayed to grant bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition and contended that the deceased committed suicide within three and half month of her marriage. The investigation report reveals that accused No.1 and his mother-accused No.2 are actually participated in harassing the deceased and abated the deceased to commit suicide. If the petitioner is released

¶24

¶25

on bail, he may abscond from the case and tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶26

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, especially the complaint is filed by the father of the deceased where the complainant has stated that his daughter married to the accused on 15.12.2019 in a grand manner. Two months back she came to her parental home at Sanjaygandhi Nagar. At that time she was pregnant. Complainant and his family members consoled her and sent back to her matrimonial home twice. Due to physical and mental torture given by the accused persons, she has committed suicide on 02.04.2020. Absolutely there is no ingredients to show how the deceased suffered any harassment physically or mentally at the hands of the accused persons during the matrimonial life. The Police filed charge-sheet. Accused No.2 is also having similar allegation has granted bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.4411/2020. Therefore, at this stage, looking to

¶27

¶28

the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion regarding the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would cause to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the following

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶31

The Committal Court/Sessions Court is directed to release the petitioner on bail in Crime No.24/2020 registered by the Thyamagondlu Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶32

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Committal Court;

¶33

(ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶34

¶35

(iii) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court; and

¶36

(iv) Petitioner shall appear before the Court without causing any delay.

¶37

SD/JUDGE

¶38

GBB

Sri Hanumantharaju v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hanumantharaju 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

Nagaraj K Vs State of Karnataka

Rangunayaka Vs State of Karnataka

M Susheela Vs the State of Karnataka

Vinod Bhandari Vs the State by

Sri. Mohammed Fazal Vs State of Karnataka

Ansu @ Ansur Ali Vs State of Karnataka