Smt Nandini L M Vs Devaraj P

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15834 CRL.P No. 10935 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10935 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NANDINI L.M, W/O DEVARAJ P, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO. 32/1, 4^TH B CROSS, PRABHAKAR LAYOUT, VISHWANATHANAGENAHALLI R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.G. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

DEVARAJ P S/O PRABHAKAR PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶14

SMT. SHANTHA KUMARI W/O SUREDNRA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R1 AND R2 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 32/1, 4TH B CROSS, PRABHAKAR LAYOUT, VISHWANATH, NAGENAHALLI R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:15834 CRL.P No. 10935 of 2023

¶17

SMT. SHOBHA, W/O RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT 88, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, PATEL MUNIYAPPA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BANGALORE.

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ATTACHED TO THIS HON'BLE COURT, BANGALORE - 01

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RANGA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; MS. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP FOR R4)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN CRL.MISC.NO.6995/2023 DATED 02.09.2023 PASSED BY THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-72) AT ANNEXURE-A AND FURTHER CANCEL THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3/ACCUSED NO.1, 5, 6 IN CRL.MISC.NO.10260/2022, DATED 28.10.2022 AND FURTHER ORDER FOR TAKING THEM TO CUSTODY IN VIEW OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE HONOURABLE COURT AND VIOLENCE CAUSED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶22

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:15834 CRL.P No. 10935 of 2023

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail

¶28

granted to the accused/respondent Nos.1 to 3 by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.Misc.No.10260/2022 dated 28.10.2022.

¶29

The grounds raised by the petitioner/complainant are that, inspite of specific

¶30

condition imposed not to threaten the complainant and other witnesses, the accused have violated the said condition by threatening the complainant to withdraw the case and also assaulted her.

¶31

Petitioner’s counsel would contend that in

¶32

respect of an incident occurred on 09.07.2023 which is after granting anticipatory bail to respondent Nos.1 to 3, petitioner has lodged a complaint and a case has been registered against them for the offence punishable under Section 506, 504, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.139/2023 of Hebbal Police Station. He contended that the accused have

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:15834 CRL.P No. 10935 of 2023

¶35

not only threatened the complainant and her brother, but also assaulted and caused injuries to them, which is evident from the wound certificates issued by the Bangalore Baptist Hospital, wherein, it can be seen that the complainant as well as her brother have sustained injuries and the complainant has sustained swelling around left eye and cheek region.

¶36

Learned counsel has also contended that in Crl.Misc.No.195/2022, in the proceedings initiated by the petitioner under the D.V. Act, the learned MMTC-V, Bengaluru has prohibited respondent No.1 from committing any act of domestic violence against her and her children and even the said condition has been violated and therefore, the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.1 to 3 is liable to be cancelled.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has denied all the allegations. He contended

¶38

that according to the complainant the alleged incident which took place on 09.07.2023 was in her matrimonial

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:15834 CRL.P No. 10935 of 2023

¶41

home, whereas admittedly, she has left the matrimonial home in the year 2016. Further, in the statements of objections, she has stated that she was driven out of the house in the year 2021. He has therefore, contended that when the complainant was not residing in the address where the alleged incident is said to have occurred, the allegation that she was threatened and assaulted etc. cannot be believed.

¶42

Undisputed facts are that, after respondent Nos.1 to 3 were granted anticipatory bail, a case in Crime No.139/2023 was registered at Hebbal Police Station, against them on a complaint lodged by the petitioner and charge sheet is also filed in the said case. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 to 3 has disputed the incident having taken place as alleged. It is contended by him that a counter case is also registered against the petitioner and her brother in Crime No.140/2023 at Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru City for offences Punishable under Section 506, 504, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15834 CRL.P No. 10935 of 2023

¶44

IPC. It is his contention that mere registration of an FIR and filing of charge sheet itself is not sufficient to cancel the bail already granted, unless the allegations are proved.

¶45

Petitioner preferred an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail gratned to respondent Nos.1 to 3. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 02.09.2023 dismissed the said application observing that the materials on record are not sufficient to wholly base the conclusion that respondents did not abide by condition No.2 and there are no strong grounds to allow the application seeking anticipatory bail.

¶46

Both the parties have lodged complaint against each other. The allegations leveled have to be established in due course. The incident having occurred as alleged, is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Filing of charge sheet in subsequent case itself

¶47

is not a ground to cancel the bail. However, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to strictly comply the conditions

¶48

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15834 CRL.P No. 10935 of 2023

¶49

imposed while they were enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is made clear that, if they indulge in threatening the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses and violate the bail condition, their bail shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶50

With the above observations, petition is

¶51

disposed of .

¶52

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶53

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK

Smt Nandini L M v. Devaraj P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nandini L M v. Devaraj P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chethan Kumar T P Vs State of Karnataka

Smt D Keerthana Vs State of Karnataka

Nadeera Nair Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Somashekara @ Soma Vs State by

Shabbir Ahammed Vs Smt. Rizwana Banu

Sri Govindraj M Vs State by Avalahalli Police Station