Karnataka High Court
Santhosh M vs State By Kumbalagodu P.S., on 27 August, 2020
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3588 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. SANTHOSH M
S/O. MANJU,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 51, HOSAPALYA,
KUMBALAGODU NEAR PEPSI,
KUMABALAGUDU,
BENGALURU - 560074.
2. ROOPA
W/O. LOKESH N,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO. M E 431,
KUMBALAGODU SIDE 2,
KUMABALAGODU EAST
BENGALURU -560074.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HARISH PRABHU S, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE BY
KUMBALAGODU P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE 560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN
CR.NO.127/2020 REGISTERED BY KUMBALAGUDU POLICE
STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
323,324,448,354,504 AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking for anticipatory bail in Crime No.127/2020 registered by the respondent - Kumbalagodu Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 448, 354, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC, before the IX Addl. CJM Court, Bengaluru Rural District.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 is an employee of one Lokesh.N who runs a provision store. Petitioner No.2 is wife of the said Lokesh.N. The respondent police have registered a case in Crime No.127/2020 on the complaint made by one Nandini. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant who was leading her life by doing tailoring and beauty parlour work has 3 done certain tailoring work for the petitioner No.2 herein and the petitioner No.2 has not paid her the tailoring charges. When the complainant insisted that the petitioner No.2 herein to pay the stitching charges, the petitioner No.2 has instigated her husband Lokesh and consequently the said Lokesh came along with petitioners and used abused language including making an allegation that the complainant is running a prostitution business. On 17.5.2020 the complainant and one Pushpalatha are said to have approached the owner/landlord seeking return of the advance amount given by the complainant to enable her to shift her house. At that time, it is alleged, that the accused persons came to the said place, used filthy language against the complainant, dragged her by holding her hair, and assaulted her and Pushpalatha with club and hands.
3. The accused persons, including the petitioners herein approached IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District in 4 C.Crl.Misc. No.104/2020 seeking anticipatory bail. By order dated 25.06.2020 the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. was rejected by the learned District and Sessions Judge. Consequently, this Criminal petition is filed once again by these two petitioners seeking enlargement by grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned HCGP submits that he has credible instruction that there are several other criminal cases pending against the petitioner No.1.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, this court finds that the case of the petitioner No.2 seeking anticipatory bail could be considered for the reasons that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner No.2 of using club to assault the complainant and Pushpalatha. Moreover being a mother of two children and in the event of her husband Accused No.1, being arrested and taken to custody, the two children will be left without any care 5 and protection. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the following ORDER
1) This petition in so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned is allowed.
2) The petitioner No.2 shall be released on bail on her executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
[Rupees Two Lakhs only] with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court.
3) The petitioner No.2 shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly and she shall not hamper the case of prosecution in any manner.
4) The petitioner No.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the learned Sessions Judge.
5) The petitioner No.2 shall be regular in attending the trial proceedings and 6 she shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the case.
6) The petitioner No.2 shall furnish her correct address and shall intimate change of address, if any.
7) The petitioner No.2 shall not involve in any criminal activities.
8) If any of the above condition/s is/are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail granted.
6. The petition in so far as the petitioner No.1 stands rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY/