Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/10212/2017 of PRASHANTH H Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 December 2017
COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10212/2017 BETWEEN Prashanth H, S/o late Hanumanthappa, Aged about 22 years, Occ: Coolie, Residing at No.806, Budal Road, 2nd Cross, SMK Nagara,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28[th]DAY OF DECEMBER 2701/7
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.10212/201/
BETWEEN
Prasnantn H,S/o late Hanumanthappa,Aged about 22 years,Occ: Coolie, Residing at No.806, Budal Road,|2[$,]Cross, SMK Nagara,Davanagere City,Davanagere District -— 5//004
PETITIONER |
(By Sri Ajay C Advocate)
AND
The State of KarnatakaBy Davanagere Women Police Station,P.J. Extension, Davanagere District 57/002Represented by: State Public Prosecutor,High Court Buildings,Bengaluru 560001 —RESPONDENT
(By Sri K.Nagesnwarappa, HCGP)
Tnis Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 Cr.PC.praying to enlarge tne petitioner on bail in Cr.No.129 /2017 (CCNo.1048/2017)of Women Police Station, Davanagere District |
for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 306, 304(B) , |r/w Section 34 of IPC. —
Tnis Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, theCourt made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The substance of the complaint is that about one year|prior to the filing of the compliant, the complainant got her|daughter Sushma married to the petitioner. Their family life.was said to be cordial and smootn going for one month. |Tnereafter, the petitioner, nis mother-KariDasamma, his sister-Baby and her nusband-Laksnmana started narassing Sushma,|the daugnter of the complainant and made her family life|miserable. On 10.8.201/7 at apout 11.720 A.M. the deceasedcommitted suicide by hanging in her husband’s house atDavanagere. It is stated that the petitioner, his mother, sister|and her husband nave brought abnormal circumstances and)being fed up with the demand for dowry and narassment made,tne aqdeceased nas committed suicide.
2 |Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that|other accused persons nave already been released on Dail.
3.0Learned HCGP opposed grant of relief and would|Submit that the deceased committed suicide in the house of the|petitioner.
4The petitioner is said to be in custody from|11.8.2017. The entire family of the petitioner is booked for the|offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with.Section 34 of IPC. In the context and circumstances, it is just|and proper to enlarge the petitioner on Dail.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is”ordered to be enlarged on bail on nis executing a personal bondin a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for like sum to the.satisfaction of the trial court, subject to the following.conditions:- 1:The petitioner-accused shall not terorrize the|witnesses nor tamper the prosecution evidence in|any MaNnef.witnesses nor tamper the prosecution evidence in|any MaNnef.
11:Tnepetitioner-accusedSnall.notleavetnejurisdiction of the trial Court without prior|permission till the completion of the trial.jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior|permission till the completion of the trial.
*alb/-.
Sd/-'JUDGE