Allowed

Sri Murugeshan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Mar 2021CRL.P/784/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving allegations of domestic violence, harassment, and attempted murder. The petition, filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., was allowed with specific conditions including execution of a bond, surrender within fifteen days, and cooperation during investigation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; petitioner directed to be released on bail upon arrest subject to conditions of personal bond, surrender within 15 days, and non-tampering with witnesses.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.784 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MURUGESHAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. R. KANDASWAMY, RESIDING AT NO.13, 5^TH CROSS, ANDHAR MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, CHELLEKERE, KALYANNAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 043.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI MURTHY K., ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HENNUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, H.C.G.P.)

¶15

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.296 OF 2019 OF HENNUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 504, 342 AND 307 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE D.P. ACT.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed by accused under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.296 of 2019 registered by Hennur Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, 342 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the D.P. Act’).

¶21

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶22

¶23

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of Smt. Girija @ Geetha, wife of the petitioner, before the respondent-Police on 9-9-2021 alleging that her marriage was performed with the petitioner on 27-11-2015. At the time of marriage, cash of Rs.75,000/and 12 grams of bracelet were given to the petitioner. In spite of the same, the petitioner is said to have regularly assaulting and harassing the complainant. Out of the wedlock, a female child is born and due to which, the petitioner was unhappy and the petitioner was suspecting the fidelity of the complainant. On 5-9-2019 at 10:00 p.m., with an intention to harass the complainant, the petitioner snatched her mobile phone and due to the quarrel, Hoysala Police was called and they advised the petitioner not to commit similar offence. On 6-9-2019 at 5:30 p.m., the petitioner forcibly attempted to kill the complainant by pouring phenyl into her mouth and when

¶24

¶25

she raised alarm, the neighbours came and shifted her to the Hospital. The complainant was admitted in the Hospital from 6-9-2019 to 8-9-2019. Therefore, she lodged a complaint on 9-9-2019. After registering the case, the Police are trying to arrest the petitioner. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail, which came to be rejected.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended

¶27

that he is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated by the wife of the petitioner. Absolutely, there is no quarrel between them. Even otherwise, the petitioner has filed a divorce petition pending before the Family Court, Bengaluru, in M.C. No.5066 of 2019. The complainant is residing in the house of the petitioner and receiving rent of Rs.25,000/- from the tenants. There is delay in lodging the complaint and the co-accused have been granted bail by the Sessions Judge. Hence, on the

¶28

¶29

ground of parity, the petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

¶30

Per contra , the learned High Court Government Pleader has objected the bail petition and contended that the petitioner has tried to commit the murder of his own wife by pouring phenyl into her mouth and since, she raised alarm, the neighbours shifted her to the Hospital. After discharge of the complainant from the Hospital, she lodged a complaint. Hence, there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Since the investigation is pending, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Hence, she prayed for rejecting the petition.

¶31

Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, it shows that the marriage between the

¶32

complainant and the petitioner was performed in the year 27-11-2015 and out of the wedlock, a female child is born.

¶33

¶34

Due to quarrel between them, there is a divorce petition pending on the file of the Family Court, Bengaluru. It is also not in dispute that other three family members of the petitioner have been granted bail by the Sessions Court. The allegations against this petitioner is that on 5-9-2019 at 10:00 p.m., when there was quarrel between the complainant and the petitioner, Hoysala Police came and advised the petitioner not to indulge in similar offence. During morning hours of 6-9-2019, the petitioner forcibly attempted to kill the complainant by pouring phenyl into her mouth and when she raised alarm, the neighbours shifted her to the Hospital and she took treatment in the Hospital for three days. However, the Hospital Authorities have not informed the jurisdictional Police regarding the incident on the date of admission of the complainant to the Hospital. The complainant was discharged on 8-9-2019 and hence, the complaint was filed on 9-9-2019.

¶35

¶36

The Police have recorded the statements of witnesses, which shows that there is frequent quarrel between the complainant and the petitioner and there is a matrimonial case pending on the file of the Family Court, Bengaluru. The petitioner and the complainant are residing together. F.S.L. report is yet to be received with regard to whether there was any substance of phenyl found in the stomach of the complainant or not. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

Criminal petition is allowed . The respondent-

¶39

Hennur Police Station is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.296 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, 342 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3

¶40

and 4 of the D.P. Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶41

¶42

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

¶43

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

¶44

iii. Petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶45

iv. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly; and

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

kvk

Sri Murugeshan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Murugeshan 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

Vinod Bhandari Vs the State by

Sri. Mohammed Fazal Vs State of Karnataka

Ansu @ Ansur Ali Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Denakaran M Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrashekar. v Vs the State of Karnataka by

Iqlak Qureshi Vs State by Tilaknagar Police Station