Allowed

Chandu v. State by Kundapura Police Station

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024CRL.P/5433/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of dowry cruelty and abetment to suicide, noting specific allegations were primarily against the first accused while others faced general charges, subject to furnishing bonds and appearing before the IO.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in Crime No. 40/2024 of Kundapura Police Station, subject to furnishing bonds of Rs. 2,00,000/- each with two sureties and appearing before the IO.

Chandu Vs State by Kundapura Police Station — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25850 CRL.P No. 5433 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5433 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

CHANDU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O BASAVA THINGALAYA,

¶10

SHYAMALA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, W/O DINESH

¶11

SHOBA LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O LAKSHMANA,

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶13

PUNDALIKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O BASAVA THINGALAYA,

¶14

AL ARE R/A 2-31B, 'SRI DEVI CHIKKU NILAYA', KORAVADI, KUMBHASHI VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 572 101

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE BY KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:25850 CRL.P No. 5433 of 2024

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.40/2024 REGISTERED BY KUNDPAURA POLICE STATION, UDUPI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners - accused Nos. 2 to 5 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 40/2024 of Kundapura Police Station, pending on the file of the learned 1^st Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Kundapura, Udupi District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant - Sandeepa Mogaveera.

¶25

Heard Sri. K Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for

¶26

the petitioners and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

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

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25850 CRL.P No. 5433 of 2024

¶29

“Whether the petitioners are entitled

¶30

for grant of bail under Section 438 of

¶31

Cr.P.C.?”

¶32

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

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 5 are seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. The brother of the deceased lodged the first information making specific allegations against accused No.1 in particular and all other accused in general. It is stated that accused No.1 married the deceased on 01.05.2021 and thereafter, started ill-treating her. It was accused No.1 who used to assault the deceased very frequently. It is also stated that on 28.04.2024, the deceased had called her maternal uncle and informed about the ill-treatment at her matrimonial house. Subsequently, she hanged herself and committed suicide said to be as abetted by accused Nos.1 to 5.

¶35

General allegations are made against the petitioners

¶36

who are accused Nos.2 to 5 that they were also ill-treating her

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:25850 CRL.P No. 5433 of 2024

¶38

both physically and mentally. However, specific allegations are against accused No.1. Petitioner No.1/ accused No.2 is aged 63 years, petitioner Nos.2 and 3/ accused Nos.3 and 4 are ladies. It is stated that both of them are married and residing at their matrimonial house. Petitioner No.4 is the brother of accused No.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶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 petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 40/2024 of Kundapura Police Station.

¶44

The petitioners 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:-

¶45

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

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25850 CRL.P No. 5433 of 2024

¶47

b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;

¶48

c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶49

d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶50

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 him. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

SPV

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Chandu v. State by Kundapura Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandu v. State by Kundapura Police Station

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

Malike Saba Vs State of Karnataka

Devaraja P M Vs State of Karnataka

Odesh Raj Urs Vs State of Karnataka

Sathisha B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Syed Shahid Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Joseph Lawrence Mascarenhas Vs the State of Karnataka