Karnataka High Court
Anjanamurthy. B. vs State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2110/2020
BETWEEN :
Anjanamurthy.B.
S/o.Bylappa, Advocate
Aged about 36 years
No.137, Gopalapura
Gollahalli Post-562123
Dasanapura Hobli
Bengaluru North Taluk ... PETITIONER
(By Sri.Nanjundaradhya B.G, Adv.)
AND :
State of Karnataka
By Nelamangala Town Police
Nelamangala-562123
Rep.by SPP
High Court of Karnatka. ... RESPONDENT
(By Smt.Rashmi Jadhav,HCGP)
---
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under section Crl.p.
filed under section.438 Cr.P.C. praying to that enlarge the
petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Cr.no.06/2020 registered by Nelamangala Town Police
Station, Bengaluru District for the offence P/U/S
498(A),494,504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and sectioin
and 4 of D.P.Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders through
Video Conference this day, the Court passed the following;
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in crime No. 0006/2020 of Nelamangala Town Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that one Smt. Veena K.B. has filed a complaint stating that her marriage was performed with petitioner/accused No. 1 about 6 years ago and at the time of marriage cash of Rs.50,000/- and 250 gms of gold ornaments were given as dowry. The couple lived happily for some time and begot a son, aged 3 about 4-½ years by name Harisurya. Thereafter petitioner/accused No. 1 started suspecting the character of the complainant and subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and also demanded to bring a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs and a site from her parents. It is also her case that the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in- law also subjected her to torture. It is complainant's case that since she did not meet the illegal demand of petitioner/accused No.1, he drove her out of the house and married one Smt. Rajani who is the daughter of aunt of the complainant. It is her case that she took custody of the child by approaching the Court of law. The complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 0006/2020 of Nelamangala town Police Station for the aforesaid offences. The petitioner/accused No. 1 has been shown as accused No. 1 in the said FIR. Petitioner/accused No. 1, anticipating his arrest had filed a petition seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc. No. 308/2020 and the same and to be rejected by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural 4 District by order dated 07.03.2020. Therefore, petitioner/accused No. 1 is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner/Accused No. 1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner/accused No. 1 that accused No. 1 is an advocate practicing at Nelamangala. It is his further submission that petitioner/accused No. 1 filed complaint during December 2019 against his wife and other Police officers and the same came to be registered on 20.12.2019 in Crime No. 215/2019 in Nelamangala Police Station. Therefore, his wife Smt. Veena K.B. has filed a complaint against him making false allegations at the instance of Police officials. It is his further submission that petitioner/accused No. 1 has taken a Life Insurance Policy wherein he has nominated the complainant Smt. Veena K.B. (his wife) as nominee to receive the benefits. It is his further submission that there 5 are no documents to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 has contracted second marriage with accused No. 5. It is his further submission that the petitioner/accused No. 5 being an Advocate is a law abiding citizen and he is ready to cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation. With these contentions he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there are serious allegations against the petitioner/accused No. 1. Even though petitioner/accused No. 1 is an Advocate he has contracted second marriage with accused No. 5 who is the cousin of complainant. It is her further submission that petitioner/accused No.1 harassed and ill treated the complainant and sent her out of the house. It is her further submission that the presence of petitioner/accused No.1 is required for custodial interrogation. It is her further submission that if petitioner/accused No. 1 is granted anticipatory bail he is likely to hamper the case of the prosecution and tamper the 6 witnesses. With these submissions she prays to reject the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader this Court has gone through the FIR, complaint and other documents.
7. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2011 SC 321, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analyzing various previous judgments and guidelines, has enumerated the following factors and parameters that can be taken into consideration by courts while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;7
(iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(vii) The courts must evaluate available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over-implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors,, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of 8 tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be
considered and it is only the element of
genuineness that shall have to be considered in the ,matter of grant bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuiness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
8. Complainant - Smt. Veena K.B. who is the wife of petitioner/accused No. 1 has filed a complaint against petitioner/accused No. 1 and others on 11.01.2020. Petitioner/accused No. 1 has filed a complaint during December 2019 against his wife and others including Police officers and the said complaint came to be registered in Crime No. 215/2019 in Nelamangala town Police Station. The said complaint filed by petitioner/accused No. 1 is prior to the filing complaint by his wife Smt. Veena K.B. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No. 1 that as the petitioner/accused No. 9 1 has filed a complaint against his wife and other Police officers, the Police officers have instigated his wife to file a complaint and therefore a false complaint came to filed against the petitioner/accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 494, 498, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The said offences are not punishable with either death or imprisonment for life. Even though the case is registered on 11.01.2020 the Police have not yet completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. The petitioner/accused No. 1 is a practicing Advocate at Nelamangala and his presence cam be secured easily. The main objection of the prosecution that in the event of granting anticipatory bail the petitioner is likely threaten the prosecution witness and will tamper with the evidence can be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
9. In the facts, circumstances and submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties this Court is of the view that by imposing the following conditions the 10 petitioner/accused No. 1 can be granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of his arrest petitioner/accused No. 1 shall be released on bail in Crime No. 0006/2020 registered by the respondent - Police and pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, subject to the following conditions.
i. Petitioner/accused No. 1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/jurisdictional Court. ii. Petitioner/accused No. 1 shall appear before the Investigating Officer/jurisdictional Court within 15 days from today.
iii. Petitioner/accused No. 1 shall appear before the Police Station on every Sunday for a period of two months or till filing of final report whichever is earlier.
11iv. Petitioner/accused No. 1 shall make himself available for interrogation whenever required. v. Petitioner/accused No. 1 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any witness acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police officer.
vi. Petitioner-accused No. 1 shall not obstruct or hamper the Police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the Police.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
LRS.
Ct-NI