1 C:1.P 41/20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE Sm DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 BEFORE: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE.*_ CRIMINAL PETITION No.41 gg 2o10;~fooTfQT BETWEEN: Mohan Kumar, S/o. B.V.Nataraju, Aged about 27 years, R/at Angadi Beedhi, Veeraswamy Galli, , » ,_ =~' ; Chamarajanagar Town. _H"._=, m "PETITTONER/S [By Sri. M.S.RajendraTPrasad;1Sr§«§dv. for Sri. V.Rangaramu & Assocsa; Advs;}T State of Ka£nataka,A V By cpgmaraja Nagar T¢wn Police. m RESPONDENT/S
T;vvIByfiSrigiRaja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP.}
iii
4?I’h;s_”s, ¢;~1.P. is filed u/Section 438 Cr.P.C. by
u’* the Adfiooate for the petitioner praying to enlarge
xthe’petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
C:ime}’No.l67/2009 of Chamarajanagar town Police
xi . Station, Chamarajanagar, for the offence p/u/Ss.
Ta 49S(A), 504 and 506 IPC.
This Crl.P. coming on for Orders on this day,
sthe Court made the following:
3 Cri.P 41/30
to a male child and even at the time of the naming
ceremony, there was a quarrel by the petitioner and
his parents. Thereafter, the complainant went to
the house of the petitioner with the child. it is
alleged by the complainant that the petitioner while
going out of the house was used to lock the premises t»
and used to abuse and assault” he; gwhilei ihfltgé
house. He was threatening that heRhasgot”politicalg
support and has got sufricient tmoneygiandihhet cant
purchase any Government Ofricer; She mas in the said
house for about 45 to S0*days and gne*petitioner was
used to some to the_house only about 15 days at that
time and =useddttot.cause ‘the assault. She also
alleges that” the_4parents–inwlaw were also abusing
_ her and causing cruelty and harassment. It is on
‘V_these facts the complaint came to be filed and the
Police registered the same and the matter is pending
V investigation.
flX:_3I “the petitioner submits that he is innocent
t,and”he has not committed any crime and the complaint
w=is false and fictitious. It is also his submission
“that he is ready and willing to abide by any
conditions that may be imposed. by the Court for
4 C1Tl.D 41/E0
anticipatory” bail. He has also submits that his
parents have been granted anticipatory bail by this
Court vide Order dated 15.12.2009 in Crl.P.
No.6490/2009. In the circumstances, he hasiscnght
for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Pleader has e£ai;yV
objected the petition and submitted that there isKau
prima facie material against the petitioner tor the
alleged offence and that FM? anti9i?§fi%f§ ball int
such circumstances cannot be Qrantedr “-
5. The perusal of the records reveal that the
petiticner had applied for anticipatory bail before
the Sessions Court end the same came to be rejected
vide,}:j)’rder dated:v31.:TL2.2009. It is well established
Ax principle of law that the anticipatory bail under
Section” 438fl*Cr.P.C. is granted sparingly and
V _particularly in cases whenever innocent persons are
d” implicated in crimes. The perusal of the complaint
ifi reveals that the complainant was confined in the
i”‘uhcfise and it was locked till the petitioner used to
Vlreturn. Apart from this, there is specific
allegation that the petitioner was abusing and
assaulting her now and then. There is prima facie
A
6 Cr1.P @3510
said application and dispose of expeditiously,
uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the
body of this Order.
Sd/- p= «
IUDGE,f7i
Ksm*
