Allowed

Sri. Kirankumar Y K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022CRL.P/7647/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge granted anticipatory bail to a husband accused of dowry harassment and cruelty. The court held that despite allegations of assault and strangulation attempts, reconciliation efforts were ongoing and bail could be admitted subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was admitted to anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest subject to execution of a personal bond with one surety and compliance with specific conditions regarding attendance and jur

Sri. Kirankumar Y K Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7647 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. KIRANKUMAR Y.K S/O SRI. KEMPASHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NO.2/287, 2ND WARD, VINAYAKA BADAVANE K.R.NAGARA, MYSORE TALUK AND DISTRICT-571602.

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRADEEP C.S., ADVOCATE) (PH)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R.NAGARA POLICE STATION MYSURU RURAL SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU DISTRICT, REP. BY SPP-560 001.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) (PH)

¶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.234/2022 OF K.R.NAGAR POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE

¶15

¶16

UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323,307,506,341,342,504 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, K.R.NAGARA, MYSURU DISTRICT AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1

¶19

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.234/2022 of K.R Nagar Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 323,307,506,341,342,504 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

¶20

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner and learned HCGP for respondentState. Perused the records.

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant is the wife of the present petitioner and has filed a complaint on 07.07.2022 alleging that her marriage with petitioner was solemnized on 20.05.2020 at

¶22

¶23

K.R.Nagar and at the time of marriage sufficient gold and cash was given in the form of dowry. It is also alleged that all along the petitioner used to harass her both physically and mentally demanding dowry and when she was pregnant she was not given proper medical care and she delivered a female child, then again they started to humiliate her, on the ground that she has given birth to a female child.

¶24

It is further alleged that on 22.06.2022 when the

¶25

child was facing some problem, she was in a hurry to admit the child to the hospital and at that time the petitioner along with his parents and his sister assaulted the complainant and confined her in a room and there was an attempt to strangulate her. In this regard a complaint was lodged. On the basis of the complaint the case came to be registered and petitioner apprehending his arrest has approached the learned Sessions Judge and his bail petition came to be rejected. Hence he is before this Court.

¶26

¶27

On perusing the records, it is evident that the

¶28

allegations of strangulation were directed against the in-laws as well as sister-in-law and they have been already granted Anticipatory Bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.7524/2022 by order dated 13.09.2022. The allegations against the present petitioner is that he all along subjected her to ill-treatment, demanding dowry. Further it is alleged that on 22.06.2022 he has also physically assaulted the complainant by slapping on her cheek.

¶29

Looking to these facts and circumstances, it appears that the dispute is between the husband and wife and it is also submitted that the re-conciliation efforts are in progress and other accused have been already granted anticipatory Bail against whom the main allegations have been made. No doubt the petitioner is the husband but looking to the facts and circumstances and allegation against him in my considered opinion there is no impediment for admitting the petitioner/accused No.1 on anticipatory bail. The other apprehensions raised by the

¶30

¶31

learned HCGP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence the petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I proceed to pass following:-

¶32

ORDER

¶33

The petition is allowed .

¶34

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on Anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.234/2022 of K.R.Nagar Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,307,506,341,342,504 r/w Section 34 of the IPC 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O/SHO subject to following conditions:-

¶35

i) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶36

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offences;

¶37

¶38

iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission of the Trial Court;

¶39

iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Court, on all the dates of hearing, unless they were exempted by a specific order.

¶40

(v) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO on every 1st and 15th of each month until the final report is submitted.

¶41

(vi) Petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer/SHO 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 him on bail as directed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Sri. Kirankumar Y K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kirankumar Y K 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

Anas Ahmed Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri. Adesh K a @ Adesh Gowda Vs State by

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka

S. Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Madhu R Vs State by Channagiri Police Station