SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 624

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
H.P.Sandesh, J.
Maheshwar Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State By R.R. Nagar P.S. - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 10022/2021
Decided On : 03-01-2022

Advocates appeared:
Krishna Kumar, Advocate, Anand Mutalli, Advocate

The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the offence and the fact that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Headnote:

Bail - Offences under IPC and D.P.Act - Enlargement of petitioner on bail

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in relation to a case registered for offences under Ss. 498-A, 323, 504 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. The complaint alleged mental and physical cruelty, dowry harassment, and assault by the petitioner and other family members.

Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the gravity of the offence and the allegations, allowed the petition and ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to certain conditions.

Issues: Allegations of mental and physical cruelty, dowry harassment, and assault against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and therefore, it was a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to specified conditions.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.0222/2021 registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 323, 504 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that this petitioner is the husband of the complainant and an allegation is that this petitioner and other family members subjected her for both mental and physical cruelty as well as dowry harassment and assault vide complaint dtd. 25/11/2021. Based on the complaint, the police have registered a case for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 323, 504 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only with an intention to harass the petitioner a false complaint has been filed and the present complaint is also filed after filing of divorce petition. The marriage was taken place on 9/11/2018. The allegations made in the complaint are all false.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the complaint averments disclose that she was subjected both mental and physical cruelty and abused in a filthy language and also subjected to dowry harassment.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and having taken note of the gravity of the offence and the allegations made in the complaint and also the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

    ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.0222/2021 registered by the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 323, 504 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, subject to the following conditions:-

      (i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

        (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

          (iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

            (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

              (v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top