Allowed

Mr Annappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2021CRL.P/6392/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted bail to Mr. Anappa, accused No.1 in a dowry and assault case, after investigation was completed. Bail was subject to conditions including a personal bond, no weapon possession, and appearance when required.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties and abiding by standard bail conditions.

Mr Annappa Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶3

CRL.P NO.6392/2021

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

MR.ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O SIDDE GOWDA, R/AT: SADARAHALLI VILLAGE, HIREGOUJA POST, LAKYA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577168.

¶6

...PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI.HARINATH M.S., ADV.)

¶8

AND

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHIKKAMAGALURU RURAL POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU, REP.BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU CITY-560001.

¶10

RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI.K.B.AMBRUTESH, HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITONER HEREIN WHO HAS BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN C.C.NO.1242/2021 (CRIME No.121/2021) OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 504, 324, 307, 498-A, 114, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ALSO SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.1242/2021 (crime No.121/2021) of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 498A, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending before the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagaluru.

¶16

Heard learned counsel Sri.Harinath M.S. for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1, who was apprehended on 24.04.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. The brother of his wife filed the first information making false allegations. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail. After

¶18

investigation, charge sheet is field. There was some misunderstanding between the couple, which has led to filing of the complaint. The injured is already discharged from the hospital. Now, she is residing in her matrimonial house. The investigation is completed. The petitioner is not required for further investigation. Since the investigation is already completed, the 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.

¶19

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. She sustained as many as six injuries and took treatment as inpatient for about 17 days and even she underwent surgery. After investigation, charge sheet is filed. Criminal Petition No.4812/2021 was filed by the petitioner before this court, which

¶20

came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.07.2021. Therefore, there are no changed circumstances to seek grant of bail. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner-accused No.1 is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶21

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

¶22

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of

¶23

bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?

¶24

My answer to the above point is in the “Affirmative” for the following:

¶25

REASONS

¶26

On perusal of the earlier order passed by this court,

¶27

it is noticed that this petitioner is the main accused, against whom serious allegations were made. Considering the seriousness of the offence, as the injured had taken treatment for about 17 days and even she underwent surgery and also the

¶28

fact that investigation was still in progress, the said petition was came to be dismissed. Now, it is stated that the investigation is completed and charge sheet is already filed. As no serious allegations are made against accused Nos.2 and 3, they are already enlarged on bail. It is not the contention of the prosecution that petitioner is having any criminal antecedents so that his presence is required for any purpose except to ensure his presence before the trial court. The apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP that he may commit similar offence or he may threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses could be taken care off by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petition is allowed.

¶31

The petitioner/accused No.1 in C.C.No.1242/2021 (crime No.121/2021) of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 498A, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is pending before the learned I Additional

¶32

Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chikkamagaluru is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to following conditions:

¶33

i. The petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶34

ii. He shall not commit similar offences.

¶35

iii. He shall not threaten or tamper prosecution witnesses.

¶36

iv. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer

¶37

or the Court as and when required.

¶38

NBM/MBS/-

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

Mr Annappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Annappa 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

Mr.Bineesh Kodiyeri Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri. K.L. Subhash Vs Smt. H.P. Vasanthi

Sri Kirana @ Kiran Vs State of Karnataka

Irfan @ Chota Irfan Vs the State through

Rahul S/O Ashok Honnalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Khairule Bhasheer @ Bhasheer Vs the State of Karnataka