Dismissed

Smt . Indu v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2021CRL.P/2604/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged trespass, robbery of ornaments, and assault arising from a matrimonial dispute over residence under the Domestic Violence Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed; petitioners not entitled to bail in event of arrest.

Smt . Indu Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2604 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SMT. INDU W/O. NARESH AGHARIA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2107, 7^TH 'A' CROSS,

¶8

1^ST FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN ROAD,

¶9

R.P.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶10

SRI. RAVI KHAWADIYA S/O. VEERSINGHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.623/C, NEW WADO MORJIM, PERNEM GOA-403 512.

¶11

SRI. ARVIND KHAWADIYA S/O. SRI. SURESH KHAWADIYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.148, LIG FLATS, POCKET 3 PASCHIM PURI, NEW DELHI-110 063.

¶12

SRI. SURESH KHAVADIYA S/O. SHIVA TULASI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.148, LIG FLATS, POCKET 3 PASCHIM PURI, NEW DELHI-110 063.

¶13

¶14

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR R.S, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 040 REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. (By Sri. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶17

… RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.53/2021 OF VIJAYA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 448, 354, 395, 506 READ WITH 149 OF IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in the event of their arrest in Crime No.53/2021 of Vijayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, in connection with FIR.No.53/2021 dated 26.02.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 506, 149, 448, 395 and 354 of Indian Penal Code

¶22

¶23

(for short 'IPC') on the basis of first information lodged by the informant Sri. Hanu Agariya.

¶24

Heard Sri. Prasanna Kumar R.S, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. K.S.Abhijith, learned HCGP for the respondent - State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits

¶26

that the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 to 4. They have not committed any offence as alleged. They have been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. There is an apprehension of they being arrested and therefore they are before this Court. The informant is father-in-law of accused No.1 as she married the son of the informant. There was family dispute between the parties. The son of the informant filed M.C.No.806/2019, which is pending before the learned I Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru, seeking divorce against accused No.1. In the meantime, accused No.1, who was residing in Delhi came back to Bengaluru and filed Crl.Misc.No.17/2021

¶27

¶28

under Domestic Violence Act seeking direction to her husband and in-laws to permit her to stay in the matrimonial house. Accordingly, order dated 09.02.2021 came to be passed directing respondents No.1 to 4 therein to allow petitioner i.e., accused No.1 to reside in the first floor of the schedule property. Therefore, in pursuance of the said order the petitioner-accused No.1 entered the house which was kept vacant. The petitioners have not required for custodial interrogation. The petitioners are not having any criminal antecedents. Petitioners are the permanent residents of the addresses mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.

¶29

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Admittedly, there was family

¶30

¶31

dispute between the parties and accused No.1 was residing in Delhi. After filing the petition for seeking divorce by the husband, accused No.1 came down to Bengaluru and filed false complaint invoking Domestic Violence Act. Even though there was an order directing to allow the petitioner to reside in the first floor of the schedule property, that will not permit the petitioners to take law into their hands. The respondents are violating the order of the Court and they trespassed the ground floor of the house and robbed the ornaments. The petitioners are absconding from the date of registration of the case. Considering these facts and circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶34

¶35

My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the

¶36

following:

¶37

R E A S O N S

¶38

The materials on record disclose that serious

¶39

allegations are made against the petitioners for having committed the offences. Admittedly, there was dispute between husband and wife and in-laws. It is not in dispute that the divorce petition was filed by the husband and petition under Domestic Violence Act was filed by the wife, wherein, an order dated 09.02.2021 was passed directing respondents No.1 to 4 to permit the petitioner and her son to reside in the ground floor of the schedule property. It is

¶40

thereafter the present complaint came to be filed on 26.02.2021 making specific allegations that accused Nos.1 to 4 along with 15-20 goondas break opened the lock, trespassed into the ground floor of the house and took away the gold ornaments and cash that was kept in the house. Even though there was an order passed by the V MMTC, Bengaluru, directing respondents No.1 to 4 to allow

¶41

¶42

the petitioner and her son to stay therein, the petitioners are not supposed to take the law into their hands. They could have informed the Court concerned that the informant or any others are not allowing her to enter or stay in the house. The allegation is of serious nature which requires detailed investigation. Considering these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that petitioners are not entitled for bail in the event of their arrest.

¶43

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed .

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Smt . Indu v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt . Indu v. the 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

Srinivasa M Vs State of Karnataka

Jithendra Shah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Vijay Kumar @ Viji Vs State of Karnataka Rep by

Chandrashekara B S Vs State by Alur Police

Sri Lakshman Gowda Vs State by

Manish Singh Vs State by