Allowed

Sri Chandrashekar G v. State by

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2023CRL.P/785/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition for bail. The court held that continuation in judicial custody was unwarranted after the charge sheet was filed, directing the petitioner to execute bail with conditions to prevent tampering and ensure attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail requiring a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, along with conditions regarding attendance, non-tampering with witnesses, and not leaving Bengaluru District.

Sri Chandrashekar G Vs State by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 785 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 785 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G., S/O. GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. NO. E48/2, SAPTADRI NILAYA, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS ROAD, NGR LAYOUT, ROOPENAAGRAHARA, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RANGANATH REDDY R, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by C SOWMYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE BY, THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA) PIN CODE - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V. S., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 785 of 2023

¶18

CR.NO.280/2022 OF BOMMANAHALLI P.S. BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 307,498(a) R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE C.M.M AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri. Ranganatha Reddy.R, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vinayaka.S, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶22

2. Present petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

with the following prayer:

¶24

“Wherefore, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to ordered the Petitioner to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.280/2022 registered by Bommanahalli Police and registered in CMM at Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 307, 498(a) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal code on such terms and conditions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to impose in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

¶25

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 785 of 2023

¶28

Upon the complaint lodged by wife of the petitioner, with the Bommanahalli police Station, a case in Crime No.280/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) came to be registered by the Bommanahalli Police.

¶29

Gist of the complaint averment reveals that the petitioner being husband was ill-treating the complainant on the ground that the couple could not beget a male child. A scuffle took place on 31.12.2022 at about 5.00 pm and the petitioner said to have assaulted the complainant and tried to smoother the complainant in order to take away her life. At this juncture, complainant bitten the finger of the petitioner and children of petitioner and his wife also came to rescue the complainant and somehow the complainant escaped from the clutches of the petitioner and lodged the complaint to the police sought for action.

¶30

After registering case, or investigating the matter interalia and arrested the petitioner on 01.01.2023 and sent

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 785 of 2023

¶33

him to judicial custody. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet is filed for the aforesaid offences.

¶34

The attempt made by the petitioner to obtain in order of bail was turned down by the learned District Judge by order dated 09.01.2023 Crl. Misc. No.54/2023. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Sri. Ranganatha Reddy.R, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition, vehemently contended that the incident as alleged is a minor scuffle and the same has been blown out of proportion and a false case has been registered as against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and sought for grant of bail. He also pointed out that the police have already filed the charge sheet, as such continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody no longer warranted and therefore, sought for grant of bail.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition stating that the petitioner has gone to the extent of taking away the life of the complainant who is none other than his own wife and if the petitioner is enlarged

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 785 of 2023

¶39

on bail in every possibility of threat to the life of the complainant and therefore, he sought for rejection of the bail petition.

¶40

He also pointed out that the children of the couple are the eye witnesses to the incident who have given a statement before the Police about overtact committed by the petitioner on the faithful day and therefore, the gravity of the offence as alleged against the petitioner is on the higher side and sought for rejection of the bail.

¶41

In view of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶42

On such perusal of the material on record, admittedly, there were differences of opinion between the couple on account of the fact that couple not beget a male child. In pursuance of the same, on fateful day i.e., 31.12.20222, at about 5.00 p.m., there was scuffle and in this scuffle, the petitioner alleged to have assaulted the complainant and tried to smoother and strangulate and take away the life of the complainant. The said attempt of the accused failed on account of the complainant biting the fingers

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 785 of 2023

¶45

of the accused/petitioner and by then the children came to the scene the attempt of the petitioner went in vain.

¶46

After registering the case, the Police arrested the petitioner and sent him to judicial custody. The charge sheet is also filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶47

The wound certificate collected by the Investigating Agency does not depict any serious injury and the injury sustained by the complainant are of simple in nature.

¶48

Taking note of these aspects of the matter, the major apprehensions of the prosecution stands quelled in view of filing of the charge sheet.

¶49

The other apprehensions of the prosecution can be met with by imposing suitable and stringent conditions.

¶50

Continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody in the case on hand is than totally unwarranted and this is not the case where custodial trial is utmost necessary.

¶51

¶52

CRL.P No. 785 of 2023

¶53

Whether at all the allegations revealed against the petitioner is true or not is matter that has to be decided by the trial Court after full fledged.

¶54

Suffice to say that the material on record at this stage would not disentitle with the petitioner for obtaining order of grant of bail with regard to the special powers vested with this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶55

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶56

O R D E R

¶57

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶58

The petitioner is directed to enlarge on bail by taking bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶59

Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly;

¶60

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly;

¶61

Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission;

¶62

¶63

CRL.P No. 785 of 2023

¶64

Petitioner shall not repeat similar offences.

¶65

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

¶66

Ordered accordingly.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58 CT:PH

Sri Chandrashekar G v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Chandrashekar G v. State 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

Imran Khan a 2 Vs the State of Karnataka

Amtur Raphe Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rajesh Mesta @ Rajesh Nagesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Pashawath Naseer @ Nusair Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajashekhara @ Raju Vs State of Karnataka by

Thejas Vs State of Karnataka