Allowed

Sri. Chandrashekara. M. B. v. State by

Karnataka HC19 May 2022CRL.P/3255/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This high court order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with offences including cruelty, assault, attempt to murder, and alleged bigamy under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of arrest, conditioned upon surrender within ten days, personal bond with sureties, and strict compliance with investigative directions.

Sri. Chandrashekara. M. B. Vs State by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3255/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHANDRASHEKARA M.B., S/O. BASAVE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O. BITTEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE, HANUMANTHAPURA POST, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT-573 201. … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE )

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY WOMEN POLICE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.26/2022 OF CHIKKAMAGALURU WOMEN P.S., CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 504, 506, 323, 307 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail, in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.26/2022 registered by Chickmagalur Women Police Station, Chickmagalur Sub-Division, Chickmagalur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506, 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶18

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

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that this petitioner is the husband of the complainant and marriage of the complainant was solemnized with this petitioner on 15.04.2019 and thereafter, the petitioner subjected the complainant for both mental and physical cruelty and this petitioner has also made an attempt to take away the life of the

¶20

¶21

complainant by attempting to strangulate her. Hence, case has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506, 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though Section 307 of IPC is invoked, no material is placed before the Court that an attempt was made to strangulate her. He would also submit that the other offences which are invoked are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He would further submit that false allegations are made against the petitioner and hence, he is entitled for anticipatory bail.

¶23

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that though marriage was performed in the year 2019, during the subsistence of the said marriage, the petitioner has also contracted second marriage in a temple at Sakaleshpura and also made an attempt to strangulate the complainant.

¶24

¶25

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that marriage of the petitioner and complainant was performed on 15.04.2019 and this incident has taken place on 01.03.2022. Though an offence under Section 307 of IPC is invoked making an allegation that he made an attempt to strangulate her, no injuries are forthcoming and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that the petitioner has contracted second marriage. Whether the petitioner has contracted second marriage or not is a matter to be probed. Hence, taking note of the gravity of the offence and the allegations made in the complaint, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioneraccused No.1 shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.26/2022 registered by

¶28

¶29

Chickmagalur Women Police Station, Chickmagalur Sub-Division, Chickmagalur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506, 307 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 , subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶31

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶32

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶33

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior

¶34

¶35

permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶36

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sri. Chandrashekara. M. B. v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Chandrashekara. M. B. v. State by

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

Rakesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohan Kotiyan Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr N R Sugandaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manoj N Vs the State of Karnataka

Susheela Bai Vs State of Karnataka

Shreedhar Vs State by