Partly allowed

Sri Prakasha T S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024CRL.P/4105/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners accused of abetting a woman's suicide sought anticipatory bail. The death note named petitioner No.1 as her husband and the cause of her death; his bail was declined, but petitioners 2 to 4, against whom there were no specific allegations, were granted bail with conditions including bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioners 2 to 4 on bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties; petition dismissed against petitioner No.1.

Sri Prakasha T S Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19131 CRL.P No. 4105 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4105 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PRAKASHA .T.S., S/O. T.G. SOMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, DR VENKATASWAMY REDDY BUILDING, KONAPPANA AGRAHARA ELECTRONIC CITY, BENGALURU - 560 100

¶9

SRI. T.G. SOMEGOWDA, S/O. LATE. GEDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶10

SMT. LALITHAMMA, W/O. T.G. SOMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 3 ARE R/AT ADDISHAKTHI NAGARA RAMAPURA, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 133.

¶13

SMT. REKHA @ FIRDOUS, W/O. MR. NAYAZ ULLA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.59/2, 11^TH MAIN, SHAMANNA REDDY LAYOUT, VIRATNAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 068

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. ANJAN KUMAR .B.N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, REP BY

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19131 CRL.P No. 4105 of 2024

¶19

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, (S.P.P.) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.178/2024 OF PARAPPANA AGRAHARA P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 306 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 9TH ADDL. CMM AT BENGALURU.

¶23

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 178/2024 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station, pending on the file of the learned IX Additional CMM Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City registered for the offences punishable under Section 304 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Chandrakala.

¶26

Heard Sri. Anjan Kumar B.N., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. M.R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19131 CRL.P No. 4105 of 2024

¶28

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶29

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶30

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶31

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

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

Petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Sister of the deceased lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 to 4. Specific allegations are made against accused No.1 that he married the deceased and was addicted to vices, as a result of which, he incurred heavy debt. Thereafter, he blocked the mobile number of the deceased and he was not reachable. On 29.03.2022, she found hanged in the house, after leaving a death note referring to petitioner No.1 as her husband and there is also reference to the loan that was arranged by her. However, it is the contention of petitioner No.1 that he never married the deceased. On the other hand, he married another lady and

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19131 CRL.P No. 4105 of 2024

¶35

leading marital life. But, the death note specifically refers the name of petitioner No.1 as the cause for her death. Petitioners have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Since the name of petitioner No.1 is specifically mentioned by the deceased as well as by the informant, the investigating officer may require him for interrogation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1 is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. However, against petitioner Nos.2 to 4, there are no such specific allegations. Therefore, I am of the opinion that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶36

Accordingly, I answer the above point partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition against petitioner No.1 is dismissed .

¶39

The petition against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 is allowed.

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:19131 CRL.P No. 4105 of 2024

¶41

The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.178/2024 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station.

¶42

The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶43

a. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶44

b. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall not commit similar offences;

¶45

c. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶46

d. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶47

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Sri Prakasha T S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prakasha T S 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

Sunita D N Vs State by

Venkataramanappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Arunkumar @ Thyape Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shaik Rahil @ Shakil Baig Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishnegowda P K Vs State of Karnataka