Allowed

Attaulla v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC18 May 2023CRL.P/3935/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. involving offences under IPC and Domestic Violence Act. The court allowed the petition, enlarging the accused on bail subject to bond and conditions to prevent tampering or threats, noting the matrimonial dispute context.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions of not committing offences, tampering, and appearing when required.

Attaulla Vs State of Karnataka by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 3935 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3935 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ATTAULLA S/O AHMAD SHARIF AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O. BASHA NAGARA DAVANGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT - 577 003.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI: CHAKRAVARTHY .T.S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA N Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION DAVANGERE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI: R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.23/2023 OF DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 307, 323, 324, 380, 498-A, 420, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN.) AND JMFC AT DAVANGERE.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 3935 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.23 of 2023 of Davangere Women Police Station, pending on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Davanagere, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 307, 323, 324, 380, 498-A, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Fathima.

¶22

Heard Sri T S Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R D Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.1. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 15.03.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. He further submitted that the informant is the wife of the petitioner. There was matrimonial dispute between the

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 3935 of 2023

¶26

husband and wife, which led to filing of complaint. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the relatives of the petitioner and they are said to have been granted anticipatory bail. The victim has not sustained any injuries. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

¶28

opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The investigation is still in progress. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶30

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 3935 of 2023

¶33

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶34

R E A S O N S

¶35

The informant being the wife of the petitioner has lodged the first information making specific and serious allegations against all the accused. Even though it is alleged that she was beaten up by father-in-law, no such allegations are made against the present petitioner. The wound certificate does not disclose whether the informant has sustained any injuries. Admittedly, accused Nos.2 to 5 are granted anticipatory bail. Even though, the investigation is not yet completed, it is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement to his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the safety of the informant and also the apprehension expressed by the learned High

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 3935 of 2023

¶38

Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶40

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

The petition is allowed.

¶43

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.23 of 2023 of Davangere Women Police Station, pending on the file the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC at Davangere, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-

¶44

(Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶46

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶47

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶48

¶49

CRL.P No. 3935 of 2023

¶50

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶51

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶52

Sd/JUDGE

¶53

*bgn/-

Attaulla v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Attaulla v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri.Nagesha M.V S/O Venkatesha, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Parashurama Gowdar Vs State of Karnataka

Raghava Shetty Sheenappa Vs State by Subramanyanagar Police

Pinki Bhattacharya Vs State of Karnataka

Dr v Girish Kumar Vs Smt R Hemavathi

Sri Krishna Murthy Vs Sri K Nagaraj S/O Sanna Rudrappa