Karnataka High Court
Mr Nagavarma Prabhu A vs Mrs Srilakshmi Narayanaswamy on 10 November, 2020
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
1
Crl.P.No.2590/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2590 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Mr. Nagavarma Prabhu.A
S/o late Gopalakrishna Ananthan
Aged about 39 years
Earlier at: Flat No.403
Aswath Enclave, 9th E Main
HRBR Layout 1st Block
Bangalore-560043.
Presently at: Flat No.207
Arjun Aura Apartment
97/4, 5th Cross, Bilekahalli
Opp: Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore-560076. ...Petitioner
Mobile No.+91 9886807214
(By Smt. N.E. Kanthamani, Advocate)
AND:
1. Mrs. Srilakshmi Narayanaswamy
D/o Mr. Narayanaswamy N.K
Aged about 38 years
Having permanent residing at
No.159, 3rd Cross, Ramakrishna Nagar
Nandini Layout
Bangalore-560096.
Mobile No.+91 9886311470
2
Crl.P.No.2590/2020
Presently r/at: Flat No.R-702
Rohan Jharoka II
Kempapura Main Road
Yamaluru, Bellandur
Bangalore-560037.
Working at: ITC Infotech Limited
No.18, Gate 1 and 2
Doddabanaswadi Main Road
Maruthi Seva Nagar
Bangalore-560005.
2. Mr. Narayanaswamy N.K
S/o late Nerlige Krishnappa
Aged about 69 years
No.159, 3rd Cross
Ramakrishna Nagar, 4th Block
Nandini Layout
Bangalore-560096
Mobile No.+91 919886477121
3. Mrs. S. Sumithra
W/o Mr. Narayanaswamy N.K
Aged about 64 years
No.159, 3rd Cross
Ramakrishna Nagar, 4th Blcok
Nandini Layout
Bangalore-560096
Mobile No.+91 9886156414.
4. Mrs. Srividya Narayanaswamy
W/o Mr. Vishak.G
Aged about 35 years
Residing at: Flat No.R-702
Rohan Jharoka II
Kariyammana Agrahara Road
Yamaluru, Bellandur
3
Crl.P.No.2590/2020
Bangalore-560037
Mobile No.+91 9620274250
5. Mr. Vishak.G
S/o Mr. Jayaram
Aged about 39 years
Residing at: Flat No.R-702
Rohan Jharoka II
Kariyammana Agrahara Road
Yamaluru, Bellandur
Bangalore-560037
Mobile No.+91 9845854090
6. Mr. Ramanathan Ramaswamy
S/o Mr. Ramaswamy
Aged about 43 years
Residing at: Balaji Manor
D'Costa Layout, Cooke Town
Bangalore-560033
Mobile No.+91 9880939457
7. Mr. Rajesh Velu
S/o late Velu
Aged about 38 years
Residing at No.227, 8th D Main
HRBR Layout 1st Block
Bangalore-560043
Mobile No.+91 9844807742
8. State of Karnataka
By Banaswadi Police Station
Bengaluru
Rep. by Public Prosecutor. ... Respondents
(By Sri. Diwakar Maddur.M, HCGP)
4
Crl.P.No.2590/2020
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section
439(2) of Cr.P.C. praying this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to set aside the order in respect of respondent
Nos.2 to 7 in Crl.Misc.No.26279/2019 on the file of the
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru CCH-21 dated 27.12.2019 be arrested and
commit them to custody and etc.,
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
2. This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C praying to cancel the bail granted to respondent Nos.1 to 7 by the Court of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-21) in Criminal Miscellaneous No.26279/2019 vide order dated 27.12.2019, wherein respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein have been granted anticipatory bail in connection with PCR No.56051/2019 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Mahoyall Unit, Bangalore for 5 Crl.P.No.2590/2020 the offences punishable under Sections 378, 427, 447, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and son-in-law of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.4 is the brother-in-law of the petitioner and respondent No.5 is the co-brother of the petitioner. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are allegedly the boy friends of respondent No.1. The petitioner and respondent No.1 have been admittedly living separately, because of certain misunderstanding between them which has resulted in filing various complaints against each other. PCR No.56051/2019 was filed by the petitioner against respondent Nos.1 to 7 alleging that certain movable belonging to him are stolen by respondent Nos.1 to 7 and though he had approached the Jurisdictional Police, they had not entertained his complaint. Therefore, he had approached the Commissioner of Police. Even the Commissioner of Police had refused to 6 Crl.P.No.2590/2020 entertain his complaint, hence he filed a private complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 378, 427, 447, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against respondent Nos.1 to 7.
4. The said case was referred to Jurisdictional Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and thereafter wards respondent Nos.1 to 7 had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.26279/2019 before the IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The said bail petition was allowed by order dated 27.12.2019 and relief of anticipatory bail was granted to respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein. Seeking cancellation of the same, the complainant has approached this Court in this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the bail application, the first prayer pertains only to grant anticipatory bail to accused No.1. Therefore, 7 Crl.P.No.2590/2020 the Court below was not justified in granting anticipatory bail to all the accused persons. She submits that though there is no prayer for grant of anticipatory bail in respect of accused Nos.2 to 7, the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously granted anticipatory bail to all the accused persons.
6. On perusal of the bail application, it seen that in the second prayer relief of anticipatory bail is sought for all the accused persons. Further all the accused persons are petitioners in the bail application. It is not the case of the petitioner/complainant that respondent Nos.1 to 7 who have been granted relief of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge have violated the bail conditions. In a petition for cancellation of the bail, unless the party who seeks such a relief points out any supervening circumstances, normally the bail granted cannot be cancelled. Further from the facts and circumstances of the case, it is very clear that the 8 Crl.P.No.2590/2020 husband and wife have been fighting series of litigations before various Courts and in the present complaint, the complainant-husband has made all the relatives of his wife as accused. In these circumstances, I find no grounds to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent Nos.1 to 7 by the Court of IV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous No.26279/2019 vide order dated 27.12.2019. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ssb