Allowed

Sri Narrendra D Devanga v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Nov 2022CRL.P/9675/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C, the High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to an accused facing charges of dowry harassment and attempt to murder. The court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to surrender within 15 days subject to several conditions regarding conduct and investigation cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted on bail in the event of arrest subject to a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and specific conduct conditions.

Sri Narrendra D Devanga Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9675/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NARRENDRA D DEVANGA S/O B.C.DEVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NO.516, 15^TH MAIN ROAD, W.O.C., ROAD, MANJUNATHANAGARA, BENGALURU-560010. ….PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. GOPI P.M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION REP. THROUGH SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI. KIRAN S JAVALI, SPP; SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)

¶13

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.191/2022 OF WILSON GARDEN P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A, 506, 307 OF

¶14

¶15

IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT ON THE FILE OF THE 6^TH ADDL. C.M.M.COURT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner–accused has filed this petition

¶19

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail

¶20

in the event of his arrest in Crime No.191/2022 of

¶21

Wilson garden Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'DP').

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶23

learned SPP for respondent–State. Perused the records.

¶24

Admittedly, the complainant is the wife of the

¶25

present petitioner and it is alleged that the marriage was solemnized on 29.11.2017 and during the course

¶26

¶27

of the marriage sufficient dowry was paid in the form of cash and gold. It is further alleged that even after the marriage, the petitioner and the in-laws of the complainant subjected the complainant to illtreatment demanding the dowry and later on the inlaws manhandled her by slapping on her cheek and again, it is repeated by the present petitioner. It is also alleged that thereafter, the petitioner attempted to throttle her neck and when she escaped, he tried to take away her life by putting pillow on her face and she escaped from those attempts. The allegations disclose that the offences are said to have taken place on 23.05.2022. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer initially, registered the case under the provisions of Section 498-A and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. However, subsequently, the Investigation Officer has incorporated the provisions of Section 307 of IPC against the petitioner

¶28

¶29

and other accused. The petitioner has approached the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions has rejected the bail petition filed by the present petitioner but learned Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail to the in-laws of the complainant. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

After having heard the arguments and perusing the records, it is evident from the records that the marriage of the complainant and the present petitioner was solemnized in the year 2017 and they are having a small kid. All along, it is alleged that there was regular demand for dowry and she was all along, humiliated and harassed as well as ill-treated by demanding dowry. According to the prosecution, on 23.05.2022, the petitioner along with his parents assaulted the complainant and then, the petitioner attempted on her life. In this regard, the complaint is lodged. Though, in the complaint itself the allegation

¶31

¶32

is made regarding the offence under Section 307 of IPC, the FIR was not issued initially under Section 307 of IPC but it was issued subsequently.

¶33

During the course of the arguments,

¶34

learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the legal notice issued to the complainant on behalf of the petitioner asking her to join the matrimonial home and then, he has invited the reply notice issued by the complainant herself dated 07.06.2022. He has invited the attention of the Court to 3^rd para in the second page which is available on 51 of the records wherein she has reiterated the incident on 23.05.2022 but no counter allegations were made in the reply notice as alleged in the complaint. The reply notice was issued by the complainant in-person and the allegations were that the petitioner has threatened her of destroying her laptop on 23.05.2022 and she got scared and in order

¶35

¶36

to avoid confrontation, she kept quiet by getting in the room along with her son. These allegations are completely contrary to the allegations made in the complaint, wherein it is specifically alleged in the complaint that on 23.05.2022 itself, there was an attempt on her by the present petitioner. Hence, prima-facie it appears that the allegations were exaggerated and the dispute is between the husband and wife. Apart from that, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a practicing advocate. Interestingly, the learned SPP would dispute this aspect on the ground that all along for last five years after marriage, the complainant was unable to understand his avocation and no material evidence is placed to show that he is a practicing advocate. Any how, that may not be the relevant at this juncture and if, the petitioner had cheated the complainant by disclosing his avocation as an

¶37

¶38

advocate, she is at liberty to take an appropriate steps and at the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the photographs wherein she was found to using Hukka and he argues that it discloses her character.

¶39

Considering these facts and circumstances

¶40

and conduct of the complainant, in my considered opinion the petitioner can be admitted on anticipatory bail and the other apprehensions raised by the learned SPP can be meted out by imposing certain conditions. Hence, this petition needs to be allowed and accordingly, I pass the following;

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed . The petitioner/accused is directed to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.191/2022 of Wilsongarden Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act

¶43

¶44

executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh Only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the concerned trial Court, subject to the following conditions:-

¶45

i) Petitioner shall surrender himself 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 him on bail as directed.

¶46

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

¶47

iii) He shall not indulge in any similar offences.

¶48

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

¶49

¶50

v) He shall mark his attendance before the Investigating Officer/SHO between 9.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. on first and fifteenth of each month until submission of final report.

¶51

vi) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

JS/-

Sri Narrendra D Devanga v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Narrendra D Devanga v. the 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

The Regional Manager Vs Sandhya

Mr Sunil Alias Sundili Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Rizwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rajina Vs State of Karnataka

Imran Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Murali K M Vs State of Karnataka