Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 973 (KAR)

Timmappa v. State of Karnataka

2016-12-15

S.N.SATYANARAYANA

body2016
ORDER : S.N. Satyanarayana, J. Petitioner 1 in Cri. Misc. No. 703 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum has come up in this petition seeking to quash the order dated 8-8-2016 passed in the aforesaid proceedings so far as it pertains to him with reference to diluting the bail conditions imposed while enlarging him on bail in Cri. Misc. No. 703 of 2012. 2. Admittedly, the proceedings in Crime No. 232 of 2012 registered with Malmaruti Police Station is at the instance of the Petitioner's estranged wife, wherein accusations are made against him and other members of his family for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. In the said proceedings the accused were enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions by order dated 23-6-2012 in Cri. Misc. No. 703 of 2012. It is the case of the petitioner herein that, he is an executive in Tata Motors and his job required him to go abroad on regular intervals in connection with his job. Hence, an application is filed by him in Cri. Misc. No. 703 of 2012 on the file of the V Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi, which was disposed of by order dated 23-6-2012 seeking dilution of certain conditions so far as it pertains to petitioner herein. The said application is considered and an order is passed on 8-8-2016, which reads as under: "The application filed by the petitioner 1 under Section 439(l)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is partly allowed with following conditions: (1) The petitioner 1 shall deposit a cash of Rs. 25,000/- in the Trial Court. (2) The petitioner 1 shall surrender the passport after returning from abroad on or before 31-10-2016. (3) The petitioner 1 shall appear before the Trial Court regularly after returning from abroad. I.O. is directed to return passport of petitioner 1 bearing No. H7272852, after depositing of Rs. 25,000/- by the petitioner 1 before Trial Court." 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has come up in this petition challenging the very basis of impounding the passport on the premise that, other than Passport Officer, who has an authority to issue passport under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 no other authority can seize the same. 25,000/- by the petitioner 1 before Trial Court." 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the same has come up in this petition challenging the very basis of impounding the passport on the premise that, other than Passport Officer, who has an authority to issue passport under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967 no other authority can seize the same. Therefore, the order dated 8-8-2016 is required to be quashed. 4. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. On going through the entire petition along with the prayer, it is seen that though a ground is urged with reference to authority of police in confiscating the passport is made out in the petition, when it comes to the relief, what is sought is only quashing of the order dated 8-8-2016 and it is not with reference to challenge regarding various provisions of the Passports Act under which police are said to have confiscated the passport. However, the , proceedings which are initiated in C.C. No. 110 of 2013 by the estranged wife of the petitioner is in accusing the petitioner and other members of his family in committing various offences against her in the matrimonial relationship with the petitioner. It is seen that the marriage between the petitioner and his wife is dissolved by decree of divorce. It is stated that said decree is not challenged by the wife. It is only the petitioner herein who has challenged it in an appeal, so far as it relates to quantum of monetary benefit awarded in the said decree of divorce. The same is said to be pending before the Division Bench of this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that the order passed by the Court below appears to be just and proper except for the reason imposing cash deposit of Rs. 25,000/- for release of passport, which is required to be modified. 5. Hence, the said condition in the order impugned is modified in directing the petitioner to furnish security of any immovable property of the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- standing in his name for release of passport without depositing any amount in that behalf. 25,000/- for release of passport, which is required to be modified. 5. Hence, the said condition in the order impugned is modified in directing the petitioner to furnish security of any immovable property of the value of Rs. 1,00,000/- standing in his name for release of passport without depositing any amount in that behalf. It is made clear that, this order will inure to his benefit on future date whenever he has to go to abroad, he shall he entitled to seek release of the passport and shall return the same to the Trial Court when he comes back. With such observation, this petition is disposed of.