Allowed

Smt Anasuya B v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Oct 2022CRL.P/7469/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a Criminal Petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused No.2 in a dual assault case, was granted bail with conditions despite trivial injuries caused and delay in medical treatment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in event of arrest in Crime No.177/2022 subject to personal bond with surety and specific conditions.

Smt Anasuya B Vs State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7469/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT.ANASUYA B W/O VIRABADRAYYA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.833, 8^TH CROSS NANJAPPA LAYOUT DODDABOMMASANDRA VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU – 560 097

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.MAHAMED GUFRAN N, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HENNUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.177/2022 OF HENNUR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, PENDING BEFORE THE XI ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner-accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in the event of

¶19

her arrest in Hennur Police Station in Crime No.177/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

¶20

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is that accused No.1 is the father of the complainant and it is alleged that the present petitioner – accused No.2 is having illicit relationship with accused No.1 and thereby, accused No.1 driven out the mother of the complainant and complainant out

¶21

of his house. However, it is further alleged that thereafter,

¶22

¶23

they occupied the house. According to the prosecution, on 25.06.2022 at 9.00 p.m., when the complainant and her mother were in the house, the petitioner along with accused No.1 came there in a Innova Car and quarreled with them in respect of withdrawal of earlier case and they assaulted the complainant and her mother. It is alleged that accused No.1 tried to throttle her neck while the present petitioner – accused No.2 assisted her. In this regard, she lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, accused No.1 was arrested and subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. The petitioner – accused No.2 apprehending her arrest has approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶24

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned

¶25

counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State. Perused the records.

¶26

¶27

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

¶28

records, it is evident that the main allegations were directed against accused No.1 in respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, wherein it is alleged that he has made an attempt to throttle the neck of the complainant. All along the allegations were that the present petitioner has illicit relationship with accused No.1. But, to substantiate the said contention, no material piece of evidence is produced. Apart from that the alleged incident has taken place on 25.06.2022 at 9.00 p.m., but, the Wound Certificate produced by the prosecution discloses that the injured was treated by the Medical Officer on 26.06.2022 at 1.25 p.m., i.e., after more than 16 hours. There is no proper explanation for delay in getting treated in the Government Hospital.

¶29

On perusal of the records, it is evident that the complainant has also suffered only simply injuries. No injury was caused on her neck and the main allegations were directed against accused No.1, who is said to have been

¶30

¶31

enlarged on regular bail after his arrest. It appears that the dispute between the parties is in respect of the properties. The petitioner is a woman and falls under exceptions. No serious allegations have been directed against her. Looking to these facts and circumstances, I do not find any impediment for admitting her on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. As such, the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/Accused No.2 is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.177/2022 of Hennur Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of 11^th Additional CMM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru City, on executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶34

¶35

i) Petitioner shall surrender herself before the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in the event of surrender, Investigating Officer/SHO shall release her on bail as directed.

¶36

ii) She shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

iii) She shall not indulge in any similar offences.

¶38

iv) She shall make herself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for during course of investigation.

¶39

v) She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

NBM

Smt Anasuya B v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Anasuya B 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

Mr Arun Kumar K v Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Jabi Ulla @ Shameer @ Imran Vs the State of Karnataka

Maruthi M R @ Druva Vs State of Karnataka by Davangere

Ranjan Kumar Jha Vs the State

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Sunder Raj Vs State by