Karnataka High Court
Devendra K Kumbar vs State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1542
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1117/2018
BETWEEN
Devendra K Kumbar,
S/o Kanthappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Anjutagi Village,
Indi Taluk,
Bijapur District -586 211.
Presently working as Conductor,
BMTC, Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru - 560027.
...Petitioner
(By Sri.C.V. Annaiah, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka,
By Sathnoor Police Station,
Ramanagar District.
Represented by their
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru - 560001.
...Respondent
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C , PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.148/2017 OF
SATHNOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 315, 323, 504, 506 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner has sought anticipatory bail in relation to offences punishable under Sections 315, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC registered by the respondent-Police in Crime No.148/2017.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
3. The complaint was made by a women called Geetha, wife of the petitioner stating that on 18.02.2017, she had made a complaint against the petitioner because of some disputes between them. At that time, she was a pregnant of three months. In connection with that complaint, petitioner was arrested by the Police and after coming out of the jail, i.e., on 14.06.2017 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner came to her house and insisted on her to take back the complaint lodged by her. As she said that she was ready to withdraw the complaint if she was taken back to his house, he assaulted on her stomach and threatened to kill her. As a result of assault on the 3 stomach, she had to abort, the foetus was found dead inside the womb itself. Therefore, a complaint in this regard was made on 20.06.2017.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the complainant is not the wife of the petitioner. If she was really assaulted by the petitioner and as a result she underwent abortion, she should have gone to hospital and taken treatment. Medical documents are not available. Therefore, false complaint has been filed. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned High Court Govt. Pleader submits that this is the second complaint against the petitioner. There was forcible termination of the pregnancy because of assault by the petitioner on the complainant's stomach. The facts and circumstances are as such that the petitioner cannot be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. If the complaint is read, it becomes very clear that earlier, there was a complaint lodged against the petitioner when the complainant was a pregnant of three months. Second incident took place at the time when she was a pregnant of six 4 months. If the petitioner disputes the marriage with the complainant, at this juncture, such defence cannot be considered. When the complainant very clearly says that she was assaulted on her stomach and as a result, she had to abort, the complaint cannot be simply disbelieved. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not find that false allegation has been made against the petitioner. Hence, anticipatory bail cannot be granted.
7. Petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE bnv ct-vk