Allowed

Somachari v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2022CRL.P/3481/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner facing charges of dowry harassment and cruelty. Court observed non-appearance during investigation and limited sentencing potential, imposing surrender, bond, and non-intimidation conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to surrender within 10 days, executing bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties, and not leaving jurisdiction without permission.

Somachari Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3481/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SOMACHARI S/O VENKATESHACHARI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT No.249, H BLOCK 5^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN RAMAKRISHNANAGARA DATTAGALLI, MYSURU CITY-570001

¶9

PRESENTLY R/AT MADAPURA NEW LAYOUT T.NARASIPURA TALUK-571124. … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI SHANKARAPPA S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN P.S., REP. BY HCGP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. … RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

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.135/2014 OF WOMEN P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.498-A, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF D.P. ACT.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.135/2014 registered by Women Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act.

¶19

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

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant marriage was solemnized with one Lokesh on 14.02.2010. In the said wedlock, she gave birth to a male and female child. Subsequently, he died on account of Jaundice. Thereafter, she was staying along with CWs.1 and 2. It is also an allegation that in the year 2010-2011, she joined Home Guard duty and the father-in-law of the petitioner was also working in the said office. The complainant came in contact with

¶21

¶22

this petitioner. Thereafter both of them married at H.D.Kote Aswath Katte Temple in the presence of C.W.3 and started to live at Ramakrishnanagara. Thereafter, this petitioner started harassing the complainant and insisting her to give dowry to do the business and also threatening her that he would marry a girl belongs to his Caste and subjected her for both physical and mental harassment. It is also an allegation that she has also pledged the gold and given the amount to accused No.1. In spite of even received the money he subjected her for both mental and physical cruelty and also caused the life threat. Hence, a case has been registered, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that an allegation is made that this petitioner is married the complainant. The age of the petitioner is 29 years and age of the complainant is more than 40 years. Apart from that, the learned counsel also would submit that the complaint was given on 03.11.2014 and the Police have issued the endorsement in terms of Annexure ‘E’ as against Annexure ‘D’.

¶24

¶25

The learned counsel also would submit that a false complaint is filed against this petitioner on 12.11.2014. An allegation against the petitioner is that he subjected her for both mental and physical harassment. The learned counsel also would submit that the address given in respect of this petitioner is the address of the complainant and this petitioner was not aware of filing of a complaint as well as registration of the case and while filing the charge-sheet also, this petitioner has shown as absconded. This petitioner is not aware of the very registration of the case and filing of the charge-sheet. Hence, a question of appearing before the Trial Court does not arise. The learned counsel also would submit that though proclamation was issued and the same is unexecuted and before issuance of proclamation also not notified the petitioner and the petitioner was not having any knowledge about registration of a case. The learned counsel for the petitioner also would submit that the statement of some of the witnesses is recorded. Now, the matter is pending before the Court and this petitioner is ready to appear before the Trial Court. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶28

appearing for the respondent - State would submit that a complaint was given in the year 2014. Subsequently he did not appear before the Court and NBW was also issued. NBW was not executed; hence, the proclamation was issued.

¶29

Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel

¶30

appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and also on perusal of the material available on record, admittedly, this petitioner was not appeared either in the crime stage or in CC. The very contention that the petitioner is not aware of registration of a case and also filing of the charge-sheet. This petitioner is having

¶31

a permanent business address. To that effect, he produced the Registration Certificate as per Annexure ‘G’. When he is having permanent address and no notice or summons has been served on the petitioner and also taking into note of the nature of the allegations made in the complaint and earlier also a complaint was given and endorsement was issued, the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the maximum

¶32

¶33

punishment is for a period of three years, it is appropriate to exercise the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner herein, subject to the condition that he has to appear before the Investigating Officer to assist him for investigation.

¶34

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶35

following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶38

petitioner/accused shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.135/2014 registered by Women Police Station, Mysuru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of IPC and Section 4 of the D.P.Act, subject to the following conditions:-

¶39

(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 Lakh only) with two sureties for the

¶40

¶41

like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶42

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

¶43

(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission till the disposal of the case.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

cp*

Somachari v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somachari 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

Neelappa Agadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Balaji C Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Naresh Das Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs the State

Sri. Reddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M.C.Girisha Vs State of Karnataka