Nandkumar S/O Hanmantha Kanji, vs The State, By Its New Town Police ... on 2 December, 2008

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Nandkumar S/O Hanmantha Kanji, vs The State, By Its New Town Police ... on 2 December, 2008

Bench: C.R.Kumaraswamy

Ca Sr nmnavmumnes HRSrY GU UP RARINAIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Hl

GH COL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 025 DAY OF DECEMBER 2008 S
BEFORE =

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE-C.R, KUMARASWAMY

CRL.P.NO.8796] 2008

Nandakumar
$/o Hanmantha Kanji.
Age 32 years os
Occ: Private Service °~
R/o Pratapnagar, . ©
Naubad,
Dist: Bidar. --
- .. Petitioner

(By Kum.Aparna ¥-Bablad, Adv}

'The State of Karnataka
So. By New Town Police Station,
Bidas.. :

.. Respondent

° "(By Sri: Subhash Mallapur, HCGP)

Criminal petition filed ufs 439 of CrP. by

"advocate for the petitioner praying that this court may be
pleased to grant bail to the petitioner in Cr.No.44/2008 of
New Town Police, Bidar which is registered for the offences

punishable u/s.304-B r/w Section 34 of IPC,
via

This Criminal petition coming on for orders, this Gay
the court made the following:

ORDER |

This Criminal petition is filed a / 5 439 of cr. p. C, bythe ;
advocate for the petitioner praying that this court italy be |
pleased to grant bail to. the petitioner in Cr.No.44/'2008 of
New Town Police, Bidar which is cegistered for the offence

punishable u/s.204-B rfw Section 84 ef IPC.

2. The contents of FIR disclose that on the complaint
lodged by ose Shiviaya, the Sub Inspector of Police of New
Town police station, "Bidar -registered a case in Crime

No.44/ 2008. against pecused no.l --- Nanda kumar and

7 accused, no.2 -Subbama for the offence punishable under

. . Section 304- 3 read with Section 34 of IPC. The contents of

FR further disc close that complainant -- Shivaraya had three

~ sons and two daughters. The marriage between Shakuntala
; anid Nandakumar was performed on 29.4.2007 at Bidar.
_. Thereafter her daughter was living with her son-in-law. They

. used to come to their house and her son-in-law used to

harass Shakuntala.

2A. Its contents further disclose that on 3.3.2008

Nandakumar informed the complainant that her daughter

TMMSENEINTE FUAZIT MGMT HT RA RINALARA PG COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIG

H COL

aed

has gone out at 10 AM and she has not returned till 5PM. :
In this regard, a missing complaint was lodged on 43.2008, |
On the same day, one Nagashetty informed the complainant
through mobile phone that her daughter bas fallen into
Manjra River on 4.3.2008 and. "she died. Since 'the

complainant has not given gold to. er daaghie iter daring

Deepavali, accused and her Sister Subbarma has harassed

her and consequently her daughter fell into river and died.

3. The Police: "inspee ton Anti 'Downy vel, COD,
Bangalore has laid ¢ harge shee "iestast accused no.l and 2
for the oflences punishable 'hader Sections 498A), 306,
304(B) read with Section 24 oF IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act. T he allegation made in the char ge

sheet con oborates with the contents of the complaint,

Learned High Court Government Pleader has

7 file: ied obje ction statement opposing the bail petition.

~S. ) | have heard learned counsel for the petitioner

as well as learned counsel for the respondent.

6. The main offence alleged against the petitioner is

under Section 304(B) of IPC and this offence is punishable
ie

with nnprisonment for a term not less than 7 years but may .
extend to imprisonment for life. In the imstant case, due 'to. ° ;
harassment meted out to the victim, she fell ints the river
and died. On careful perusal of the charge sheet, itissclear. %
that the case is based on circumstantial evidence, : be this
case the investigation is completed - and 'the investigating
agency has laid charge sheet, Therefore the question of
obstructing the investigation may not arise: at thi is stage and
the presence of the accused for. the pamose of investigation
nay not be requived sy the investigating 'ig agency. The offence
alleged is of SETIO ous natine a and theretore an opportunity is
to be given to. the ace "use on to prepare his defense on merits.
im the instant case, the « c ve title of the petition discloses
that the . 'petitioner IS 4 bermanent resident of Bidar.

T herefoi, the & ques tion of abseonding of the accused js quite

oe remote. The 'petitioner ris In judicial custody since 4.3, 2008.
2 tis well settled law that pre-trial detention is bad in law,
The othe Y accused have been released on bail, Therefore,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, lam of

the view that this is a fit case to grant bail at this stage.

7. In view of the above discussion, | pass the following:

é.

ROMIURIFINE TIRIEY SAsUE? WF NARIIALARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COL

1 wr a

= we ea

ORDER

1, Petition is allowed conditionally.

2. Petitioner is granted with bail,

3. Petitioner shall be released on bail ou 1 his exec: outing | a personal bond for a sum of Re 10 ov0f- | {Rupees Ten thousand only). w ith . hwo. 8 sureties | for the likesum to the satistacticn ¢ of. the » learned 'Sessions Judge, Gulba arga on the follcwi ing condi Ons:

(i) Petitioner shall net tamper with "the prosecation witnesses.

(i) "He shall not jumip bail.

2 ead "iy : any ; condition .-is violated, the bail entails Pe ance ie wHion.

Sd/a Judge ORB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court