Allowed

Sri Praveen Kumar Reddy Velampalli v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2022CRL.P/4967/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who faced arrest for offences under Sections 498A and 504 IPC. The court imposed bail bonds with sureties and conditions including surrender, cooperation with investigation, and avoiding flight.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in event of arrest subject to executing personal bond with sureties, cooperating with investigation, and appearing before Investigating Officer periodically.

Sri Praveen Kumar Reddy Velampalli Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4967/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR REDDY VELAMPALLI, S/O VENKATA RAMI REDDY VELAMPALLI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.4-49, OLD POST OFFICE LANE, LODDIPALLA, ORVAKAL, KARNOOL, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI LOKESHA D, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMAN POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY. REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, 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.79/2022 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN P.S., BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 504 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 37^TH ACMM, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.79/2022 registered by Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of IPC.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶19

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with this petitioner in 2015 and both of them were residing at Bengaluru and the petitioner started to insist the complainant to go for job and when she had joined the job, he used to collect her salary and also started to harass her both mentally and physically and inspite of the complainant was suffering from ill-health, accused Nos.2 and 3 insisted her to got to job and they also continued the harassment and also not provided food and protection to the complainant as well as the child. Hence, a complaint was filed

¶21

¶22

and based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and the matter is under investigation.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant left the house and hence the petitioner filed restitution of conjugal rights petition before the Court in terms of Annexure-F and the same was filed on 08.03.2022 and the present complaint is filed on 10.03.2022 (Annexure-B) and only in order to harass the petitioner, a false complaint is filed making false allegation after thought after filing of the restitution of marriage. The learned counsel submits that this petitioner has not committed any offence and the petitioner is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶25

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that after the marriage, the petitioner started to harass the complainant both mentally and physically and also frequently abused in a filthy language and also allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner has not taken care of the complainant as well as the child.

¶26

¶27

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

¶28

on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the contents of the complaint, no doubt, the complaint contents discloses that the marriage was taken place in 2015 and an allegation is made against this petitioner that he subjected the complainant for both mental and physical harassment and also misusing the salary of the complainant. Having taken note of the allegations made in the complaint, the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the maximum punishment is three years. The other allegation is that the petitioner abused the complainant in a filthy language and the same has to be considered during the course of investigation and this Court can direct the petitioner to cooperate with the Investigating Officer for investigation in the matter.

¶29

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶30

following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall

¶33

be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.79/2022 registered by Basavanagudi Women Police

¶34

¶35

Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

(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.

¶37

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

¶38

(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.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶40

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month

¶41

¶42

between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sri Praveen Kumar Reddy Velampalli v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Praveen Kumar Reddy Velampalli 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

Smt.Sunandamma Vs Smt.Lakshmamma @ Doddalakshmamma

Sri Dilip Kumar S., Vs State of Karnataka

Awez @ Uvez Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Suresh H G Alias Suri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Pramodh Vs State of Karnataka

Byjith Vs State of Karnataka