Allowed

Kiran Babu S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2022CRL.P/68/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a petition for anticipatory bail filed by a husband accused of dowry harassment and cruelty. The court granted bail subject to conditions including surrendering within ten days, executing a bond, not interfering with investigation, and appearing monthly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed anticipatory bail to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties subject to specific conditions.

Kiran Babu S Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRL.P.NO.68/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KIRAN BABU S S/O LT SRINIVSAIAH AGED 41 YEARS R/AT NO 86(2) DEEVITYPET, 25^TH WARD CHIKKABALLAPUR CHIKKABALLAUPR DISTRICT-562101

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.A.N.RADHA KRISHNA, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMAN POLICE STATION BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560009

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI.KRISHNA KUMAR.K.K, HCGP)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.210/2021 OF BASAVANAGAUDI WOMEN P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498A OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF DP ACT ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 37th ADDITIONAL C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶16

THIS 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

¶19

praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.210/2021 registered by

¶20

the Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶21

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the State.

¶22

The factual matrix of the case is that petitioner's

¶23

marriage was solemnized with the complainant on 30.08.2013 and they are having one daughter aged 5

¶24

¶25

years. The allegation against the petitioner is that, he used to demand Rs.15,00,000/- for taking a house on lease and subjected her to cruelty and also used to harass the complainant. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered. The matter is under investigation.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a false allegation is made and marriage was performed in 2013 itself and they have led marital life peacefully for a period of eight years and hence, prays that he may be enlarged on bail.

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondent would reiterate the contents of the complaint that the petitioner is harassing the complainant. He also contends that in the complaint, a specific allegation is made that the petitioner is having illicit relationship with other women.

¶28

¶29

Having heard both the counsels and taking note

¶30

of the averments made in the complaint, wherein an allegation is made that petitioner subjected the complainant to cruelty and having illicit relationship, apart from the allegation of demand for Rs.15,00,000/to take a house on lease, and having considered the duration of marriage i.e., eight years and taking note of the gravity of the offence and the nature of allegation, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of CR.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.210/2021 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and

¶33

¶34

Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act subject to the following conditions :-

¶35

(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.

¶36

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

¶37

(iii)The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the

¶38

¶39

investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶40

(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.

¶41

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am 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.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

NG*

Kiran Babu S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Babu S 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

Y J Madhu Vs State by Tarikere Police

Puttaraju @ Ravi Vs State by Handanakere Police Station

Apporva Choudary Vs State of Karnataka

Kumar @ Kumarappa Vs State by Drfo

Sri Mohana Vs State of Karnataka

H G Naveen Naika @ Bhandary Vs State by Sakarayapatna Police