SRI AMIT S/O MALLINATH ANNEPPANAVAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103815 OF 2024 (439(CR.PC)/483(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SRI AMIT S/O. MALLINATH ANNEPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNNUR, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE, PIN-587301.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, D sii gg nit ea dl l by y DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI JAMKHANDI RURAL P.S.
MANJANNA MANJANNAE E D 20a 2te 5: .01.20 … RESPONDENT
14:09:49 +0530 (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C.
(483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.105/2024 REGISTERED BY JAMKHANDI RURAL POLICE STATION, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3(5), 108, 80 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) R/W SECTIION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

Petitioner Advocates:ANAND R KOLLI ,Respondent Advocate:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI)

This petition for regular bail is filed by accused no.1 in Crime no.105/2024 by Jamkhandi Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Section 3(5), 108, 80 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (‘BNS’ for short) read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Sri Anand R Kolli, learned counsel for petitioner at outset submitted that, in relation to offence alleged, petitioner was apprehended on 19.10.2024. It was submitted, offence alleged against petitioner carry maximum sentence of imprisonment for life. It is submitted that, despite lapse of more than 90 days, charge-sheet is not filed since the offence alleged against petitioner would not fall within ford of Section 187 (3)(i) of BNSS. In view of above, petitioner would be entitled for default bail.

3. Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent after securing instructions submitted that charge-sheet has not been filed till date. She is unable to dispute that 90 days for lapse after arrest of petitioner.

4. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.

5. From above, point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether petitioner is entitled for regular bail with conditions?”

6. Same is answered in affirmative for following reasons.

7. This Court in Crl.P.no.13459/2024 disposed of on

13.12.2024 has held where charge-sheet is not filed within 60 days or 90 days (as case may be) from date of arrest of accused, he would be entitled for bail by default. In view of fact that despite lapse of 90 days after arrest of petitioner charge-sheet is not filed, petitioner’s case would qualify for default bail but by imposing appropriate costs. Hence following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused no.1 is released on bail in Crime no.105/2024 of Jamkhandi Rural Police Station for offences punishable under Section 3(5), 108, 80 of BNS read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to following conditions:

a) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for likesum.

b) He shall make himself available for purpose of investigation as and when required and he shall co-operate with investigation.

c) He shall mark his attendance before IO every alternate Sunday at 11:00 am.

d) He shall not threaten, tamper with or influence prosecution witnesses, either directly or indirectly.

e) He shall not indulge in any criminal activities.

f) He shall not leave Bagalkote District, without prior permission and shall inform change of residence.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document