Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 2075 (KAR)

Rajith R v. State Of Karnataka

2020-10-19

SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. - This is a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Cr.No. 63/2020 registered by the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 323, 307, 498A, 506, 494, 417 read with section 34 of IPC. The other two accused are the parents of the petitioner. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The complaint was made by the wife of the petitioner on 6.3.2020. The complaint shows that the petitioner was earlier married. Complainant was also a divorcee. The petitioner and the complainant got married on 28.8.2015 at Kolluru Temple and thereafter they stayed in the petitioner s residence at Nagarbhavi. The allegation is that the petitioner told her that he had taken divorce from his first wife but actually on the date of her marriage with him, the divorce petition was still pending. She has also alleged that the petitioner misrepresented her that he was a practising advocate and in fact he had not obtained law degree at all. Then she complains about ill-treatment to her and, petitioner and his parents trying to force her to undergo abortion for terminating her second pregnancy. The specific allegation is that in the month of February 2018, when she was found to be pregnant for the second child, she was forced to undergo abortion; but she was unwilling and for this reason the petitioner and his parents attempted on her life by pouring kerosene on her body. On the next day, she was sent out of the house and since March 2018 she has been living with her parents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a document, i.e., petition in M.C. 218/2012 to show that the complainant was also earlier married to one Suryanarayanan and since their relationship strained they decided to get their marriage dissolved. Therefore, a petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed. He refers to another complaint made by the complainant against the petitioner on 3.4.2018 with regard to an attempt made by the petitioner to kidnap her first child and also the explanation given by the petitioner to the police to the complaint dated 3.4.2018. Referring to this document, learned counsel argues that actually the complainant has stated falsehood in the complaint dated 6.3.2020. The complainant has been staying in her parents house since March 2018. Referring to this document, learned counsel argues that actually the complainant has stated falsehood in the complaint dated 6.3.2020. The complainant has been staying in her parents house since March 2018. If really there was an attempt on the life of the complainant, she should have made the complaint to the police at the earliest point of time. Instead she waited for two years and alleges about attempt made on her life. Therefore, the allegations prima facie appear to be falsehood. The other two accused have been admitted to bail by this court already. Except the offences under sections 307 and 498A IPC, the other offences are bailable. With regard to these two non-bailable offences, there are no materials at all. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner of being arrested is well founded and therefore the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail. 5. The learned HCGP opposes the petition by submitting that the complaint discloses clear attempt made by the petitioner on the life of the complainant also and an attempt to terminate her pregnancy. Investigation is still pending. Petitioner s presence is necessary for interrogation. Therefore, anticipatory bail cannot be granted. 6. It is settled law that anticipatory bail can be granted if prima facie the allegations made in the complaint appear to be falsehood. In this case, from the complaint itself it can be made out that even according to the complainant there was an attempt on her life in February 2018 and she has been residing with her parents since March 2018. If really there was an attempt on her life, nothing prevented her from approaching the police soon after attempt was made. Instead, on 6.3.2020 she went to the police station to lodge a complaint. If the averments are assessed in the light of the documents produced by the petitioner s counsel, it is possible to infer at this stage that the truth in the allegations is difficult to be accepted. 7. The petitioner s counsel has also produced enrolment certificate which shows that petitioner is a practising advocate. Even he got issued a notice to the complainant through his advocate calling upon her to return to her matrimonial home. All these documents clearly indicate that whatever the complainant has stated cannot be per se accepted. 7. The petitioner s counsel has also produced enrolment certificate which shows that petitioner is a practising advocate. Even he got issued a notice to the complainant through his advocate calling upon her to return to her matrimonial home. All these documents clearly indicate that whatever the complainant has stated cannot be per se accepted. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail even though the investigation is still pending. Hence, I pass the following order : - (a) Petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner by the respondent police in connection with Crime No.63/2020, he shall be released on bail subject to his executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and providing two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer. The petitioner is also subjected to following conditions:- (b) He shall co-operate with the police for completing the investigation. (c) He shall mark his attendance in the police station once in a fortnight preferably on Monday between 9.00 AM and 12.00 Noon, till filing of the charge-sheet. (d) He shall not threaten the witnesses and tamper with evidence.