Allowed

Harshath Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024CRL.P/5887/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the petitioner's criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, subjecting him to specific conditions while awaiting investigation by the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail to appear before Investigating Officer within 15 days, subject to furnishing bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with sureties and other conditions.

Harshath Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25013 CRL.P No. 5887 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5887 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

HARSHATH KUMAR S/O DERANNA RAI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT PUTHRAKALA, KUMBADAJE VILLAGE, YETHADKA, PERDALA, KASARAGOD, KERALA-671551.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SACHIN B. S., ADV.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA UDUPI WOMAN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE -560001.

¶15

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.29/2024 OF UDUPI WOMEN P.S., UDUPI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 498-A,323,324,504,506,34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM UDUPI AND THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UDUPI HAS REJECTED THE BAIL PETITION ON 11.06.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.165/2024.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:25013 CRL.P No. 5887 of 2024

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.29/2024 of Udupi Women Police Station, pending on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Udupi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Shruthi Shetty.

¶23

Heard Sri.SachinB.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:25013 CRL.P No. 5887 of 2024

¶28

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

¶29

the following:

¶30

R E A S O N S

¶31

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of anticipatory bail on the apprehension of being arrested. The petitioner lodged the first information alleging commission of the offences as stated above. It is stated that their marriage had taken place on 04.05.2018. There was a demand of dowry by the petitioner and the informant was treated with cruelty and therefore, she filed the complaint.

¶32

It is stated that the petitioner was served with notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., and he has not appeared before the Investigating Officer. But, according to the petitioner, he was never served with any such notice and he is ready to appear before the Investigating Officer and co-operate with the investigation. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.2 to 5 are already granted anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of the allegations,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:25013 CRL.P No. 5887 of 2024

¶35

I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶36

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶37

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The petition is allowed.

¶40

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.29/2024 of Udupi Women Police Station.

¶41

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶42

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

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25013 CRL.P No. 5887 of 2024

¶44

the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶45

b. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, 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.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

¶51

CT:bms: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Harshath Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshath Kumar 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

Nagaraju G D Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sharath Kumar. K @ Sharu Vs State by Sheshadripuram P. S.

Sri. Madhu. M @ Madhu Kumar. M (A2) Vs the State of Karnataka

Narayana Moolya Alias Bandasura Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Murali Vs the State of Karnataka

Parmeshwarappa @ Parameshappa Vs State by Honnalli Police Station