Allowed

Mr.Goutham Krishna v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2021CRL.P/3898/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for a petitioner accused of stalking, assault, and attempted murder stemming from a domestic dispute, noting completed investigation and risk of pre-trial punishment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on Rs.2,00,000 bond with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering and committing new offences.

Mr.Goutham Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3898 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MR. GOUTHAM KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O MANJUNATH R/AT THANIGEBYLU JAYAPURA TARIKERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT KARNATAKA – 577 129

¶8

…PETITIONER (BY SRI.P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LINGADAHALLI POLICE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶11

… RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. H.R. SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THIS COURT TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.31/2021 OF LINGADAHALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU

¶14

¶15

DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTINS 279, 498A, 324, 354, 307, 506 AND 504 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner/accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.31 of 2019 of Lingadahalli Police Station, on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 498-A, 324, 354, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

¶18

Brief facts of the case are that, the accused is her husband and there was a family dispute between the two. Therefore, she started residing in her parental house. On 01.04.2021, at about 9.00 a.m., the accused came to the parental house of the informant in his Omni Car bearing registration

¶19

¶20

No.KA-19/M-0575 and started abusing the informant in filthy language. At that time, the villagers advised him to come along with his father to settle the matter. Without heeding to their advise, the accused trespassed into the house and criminally intimidated that he would cut the limbs of the informant and assaulted to her left leg with a chopper. The accused tried to kidnap his 2^nd child. When the informant asked to give her child back, the accused caught hold of her hair and drove the car in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the informant fell on the road, sustained injuries which could have caused her death. In the meanwhile, the villagers came and intervened in the matter and immediately, she was shifted to the Hospital. Therefore, the informant requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the accused. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation. It is

¶21

¶22

stated that now the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed.

¶23

Heard Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Counsel for

¶24

the petitioner and Sri. H.R. Showri, learned HCGP for the respondent -State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶25

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. The dispute is between the husband and wife and as a result, she started residing in her parental house. Neither Section 279 or Section 307 of IPC are attracted to the facts of the case. The wound certificate produced before the Court would disclose that the informant had sustained only simple injuries. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 01.04.2021 and since then he is in

¶26

¶27

judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of 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.

¶28

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. There are eye witnesses to the incident. The material placed before the Court would show that there was a clear intention of causing the death to the informant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is not entitled for grant of bail. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail,

¶29

¶30

he may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

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

¶32

“Whether the petitioner is

¶33

entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶34

My answer to the above point is in the

¶35

‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶36

R E A S O N S

¶37

The allegations made against the petitioner is of serious nature. The wound certificate would disclose that the informant sustained simple injuries. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the

¶38

¶39

petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶40

8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in

¶41

the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The petition is allowed.

¶44

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.31 of 2019 of Lingadahalli Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

¶46

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶47

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶49

If in case the petitioner violates any of these

¶50

conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the trial Court for cancellation of bail.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Mds.

Mr.Goutham Krishna v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Goutham Krishna 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

Shanmukh @ Sanamukh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar @ Jangli Vs the State through

Vijay Laximi @ Vijaykumari Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Basavaraju S Hosamani Vs State of Karnataka

Kalpana Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen Kumar S M Vs State of Karnataka by