Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Vittal S/O Bhimappa Pattar on 24 January, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 24 T H DAY OF JANU ARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.100722/2019
BETWEEN:
STA TE OF KARNA TAKA
BY HUNGUND POLICE S TA TION,
BAGALKOTE DIS TRICT,
NOW REPRES ENTED BY
ADDL. S TA TE PUBLIC PROSECU TOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP.)
AND:
VITTAL S/O BHIM APPA PATTA R
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: KUDALSANGAM, TQ: HUNGUND,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MRU TYUNJAY S HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS F ILED UNDER
SECTION 439(2) O F CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASID E
THE ORDER PA SSED IN CRL.M ISC.NO .246/2018,
DATED 09.04.2018, PASSED BY THE II-ADDL. DIS T. &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKO TE AND TO D IRECT TH E
CONCERNED POLICE TO ARRES T AND COMMIT THE
RESPONDENT/ A CCUSED NO.1 TO CUSTODY IN
RELA TION TO CRIME NO.49/2017 OF HUNGUND
POLICE S TA TION, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 354, 498-A , 504
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC & SECTION 3(1)(S) &
3(2)(VA) OF SC/S T (PA) ACT, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The State has filed this petition under section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.246/2018, by order dated 9.4.2018, by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the wife of the accused/respondent filed a complaint 3 before the respondent police, wherein she has stated that her husband and in-laws, brother-in- law and sister-in-law used to ill-treat her both physically and mentally on the ground that she is not looking nice and she does not know to cook properly etc.,. accused No.1, her husband and other accused used to abuse her by taking the name of her caste. She suffered lot of humility in the society. Based on her complaint, the case was registered for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 354, 498A, 504 read with section 149 of IPC and section 3(1)(s), 3(1)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thereafter the respondent filed an anticipatory bail petition before the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote and the said Court after giving opportunity to the prosecution to file objections and after hearing the prosecution, allowed the 4 anticipatory bail petition by order dated 9.4.2018, subject to condition Nos.1 to 4.
3. Now the prosecution has stated that there is a clear bar under section 18 of the Act to entertain the anticipatory bail petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and the trial Court has not considered the same and it is further stated that before granting anticipatory bail, NBW was issued against the respondent by the trial Court. The order passed by the trial Court is not supported by proper reasons and therefore the bail granted to the respondent be cancelled.
4. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent.
5. It is seen from the record that after the registration of the case against the respondent and other accused, the respondent approached 5 the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote, seeking anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution opposed the bail application by filing objections. The said Court after hearing both the sides allowed the anticipatory bail petition on 9.4.2018, subject to imposing conditions No.1 to 4. The Sessions Court in paragraph No.11 of the order has observed as to why it is necessary to grant anticipatory bail to the respondent.
6. Admittedly the dispute is arising out of the matrimonial matter. It is also observed by the Court that already accused Nos.2 to 6 had been granted bail by the Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.351/2017. At this stage also there is no allegation of violation of any of the conditions, imposed by the Sessions Court, by the respondent. The question of bar under section 18 of he Act was not considered since the 6 complainant is none other than the wife of the respondent. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the bail granted to the respondent and the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-