Allowed

Smt Mamatha M M v. State

Karnataka HC6 Mar 2021CRL.P/362/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The accused were charged with kidnapping and forcible marriage. The court imposed conditions including a personal bond, surrender within 15 days, and not tampering with witnesses, finding no prejudice to the prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners are directed to be released on bail upon arrest, subject to execution of a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh each with surety, surrender within 15 days, and other conditions to prevent tampe

Smt Mamatha M M Vs State — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.362 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. MAMATHA M.M.

¶8

W/O. JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶9

C. JANARDHAN

¶10

S/O. CHANGAL RAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

¶11

PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT NO.52/4, 3^RD CROSS, VIJAYNAGAR,

¶12

BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶13

SMT. THRIVENI M.M. W/O. M.H. HOMBALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT 4^TH BLOCK, 7^TH WARD, BYPASS ROAD, GONIKOPAL, VIRAJPET, KODAGU - 571 213.

¶14

SMT. PRARTHANA @ KUMARI W/O VINOD P.R., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO.10/1, 4^TH MAIN, 3^RD BLOCK, THYGARAJA NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 070.

¶15

¶16

M. H. HOMBALAIAH S/O. LATE HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

¶17

THANUSH CHAKRAVARTHI M.H. S/O. M. H. HOMBALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS. PETITIONER NOS.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT 4^TH BLOCK, 7^TH WARD, BYPASS ROAD, GONIKOPAL, VIRAJPET, KODAGU - 571 213.

¶18

HARSHA VARDHAN M.M. S/O. LATE MUDIAIAH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4, 8^TH CROSS, NEAR SATYA NARAYANA KALYANA MANTAPA, J.C. NAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 086. ...PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI HARISH PRABHU S., ADV.)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE BY NELAMANGALA RURAL P.S. REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

SMT. VIDHYASHREE K. D/O. KRISHNAPPA, W/O. RISHI VARDHANA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, RESIDING AT HONNAGANGAIAHNA PALYA, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 123. ... RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1 & SRI MURTHY D. NAIK, ADV., FOR R-2)

¶24

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.174 OF 2020 OF NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 366, 384, 342, 354 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE IPC.

¶26

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

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 to 8 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.174 of 2020 registered by Nelamangala Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 384, 342, 354 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

¶29

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2-victim.

¶30

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of the victim, the respondent-Police registered a case on 26-10-2020. It is alleged that her father is working as an Electric Contractor and running business at Bengaluru. While she was working in an Audit Office, she came in contact with accused No.1, Driver in the Audit Office and continued their relationship. On 18-10-2020, the accused persons said to have kidnapped the victim girl in a car to Gonikoppal and forcibly married her to accused No.1 and when she tried to escape in a bus, even at that time, accused persons forcibly took her to the Office of Sub-Registrar of Marriages for getting the marriage registered. Thereafter, she messaged her father and her father came along with Nelamangala Police to rescue her. On registration of the complaint, the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest the petitioners. The petitioners filed a bail petition before the Sessions Court

¶32

¶33

for grant of anticipatory bail, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners has

¶35

contended that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and a false complaint has been filed by the victim, after due deliberation. Victim eloped along with accused No.1 and their marriage was arranged, after distributing invitation cards to the relatives. The petitioners are the relatives of accused No.1, who attended the marriage and under whose presence, the marriage was registered at Ponnampet, Kodagu. On intervention of the father of the victim, a false complaint case has been registered by the victim. Except attending marriage, the petitioners have not done anything. The victim herself came along with accused No.1 for getting married and in support of his arguments, he has produced marriage

¶36

¶37

invitation card and marriage photographs. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶38

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that, the petitioners forcibly took the victim and detained her in Gonikoppal in the house of one of the accused, forcibly married her to accused No.1 and when she tried to escape, they compelled her to the Sub-Registrar Office to get the marriage registered. Due to intervention of the Police, the victim was rescued. Investigation is under progress. Petitioners are absconding from the date of offence and they are required for custodial interrogation. Hence, he prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶39

Sri Murthy D. Naik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-victim, has contended that the allegation made by the complainant in her complaint

¶40

¶41

clearly reveals that the petitioners have kidnapped and took her to Gonikoppal and compelled her to marry accused No.1 and after marriage, when she tried to escape from the said place, again they took her to Sub-Registrar Office and registered the marriage forcibly. Investigation is pending. Petitioners are absconding from the date of registering the case and if they are granted bail, they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and abscond from the case. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF A.P. v. BIMAL KRISHNA KUNDU AND ANOTHER reported in (1997) 8 SCC 104 . Hence, he prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶42

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader as well the learned counsel for the victim and perusal of the record, a complaint came to be filed by the victim on

¶43

¶44

26-10-2020 alleging that the accused persons kidnapped her and performed her marriage with accused No.1 in a temple. When the victim tried to escape, again they took her to Sub-Registrar Office for getting the marriage registered. There is delay of seven days in lodging the complaint. The age of the victim is 21 years and she is a major. Photographs produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners reveal that the victim along with accused No.1 has posed to the photographs prior to the marriage and after the marriage. The victim has posed for photographs along with accused No.1 even at the time of tying mangala sutra (thali) . The marriage was performed as per the Hindu rites and customs. The petitioners are the relatives of accused No.1, who attended the marriage. Due to intervention of the father of the victim, the victim was rescued on 23-10-2020 itself. However, the complaint is filed on 26-10-2020, that too, after delay of three days.

¶45

¶46

On careful perusal of the record, it goes to show that the victim eloped with accused No.1 and got married. Investigation is still pending. The only apprehension of the prosecution is that, if bail is granted to the petitioners, they may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and they may abscond from the case. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if bail is granted by imposing certain conditions, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

Criminal petition is allowed . The respondentNelamangala Rural Police Station is directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.174 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 384, 342, 354 and 506 read with Section 149 of the IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶49

¶50

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each (Rupees one lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶51

ii. Petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order;

¶52

iii. Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶53

iv. Petitioners shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and

¶54

v. Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for, for the purpose of investigation;

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

kvk

Smt Mamatha M M v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mamatha M M v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish @ Kulkul Vs State of Karnataka

Vinay @ Sentu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sanjeet Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraj K Vs State of Karnataka

Rangunayaka Vs State of Karnataka

M Susheela Vs the State of Karnataka