Loading...

Mohan Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mohan Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2010
Author: A.S.Pachhapure
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*

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information