RAJESH v. STATE BY CHAMARAJANAGAR

(BY SRI. SACHIN R.R, ADVOCATE) AND: …PETITIONER STATE BY CHAMARAJANAGAR WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO GRANT THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO ACCUSED NO.1/ PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CR.NO.60/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504 AND 34 OF IPC, REGISTERED BY THE CHAMARAJANAGAR WOMEN POLICE STATION, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND DISTRICT, COURT, CHAMARAJANAGAR. CHAMARAJANAGAR CJM THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:20072 CRL.P No. 2086 of 2024 ORDER The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 60/2023 of Chamrajanagar Women Police Station, pending on the file of learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM Court, Chamarajanagara District, Chamarajanagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Smt. Sunitha.

Heard Sri. Sachin R.R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?” My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative' for the following: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:20072 CRL.P No. 2086 of 2024 R E A S O N S

The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking grant of anticipatory bail. Accused Nos.2 to 6 are the relatives of the petitioner and they were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 01.02.2024 in Crl. Misc. No.33/2024 taken into consideration of the fact that they are residing separately. The informant is the wife of the petitioner and she has made a specific allegation that the petitioner had pledged 100 grams of gold which was given to her during her marriage and the same was not got it released by the petitioner. On the other hand, he used to demand for additional money and gold. He also used to suspect her fidelity and he used to quarrel with her every now and then. It is also alleged that he is having extra marital relationship. On 22.11.2023, the informant lodged the first information against the petitioner. It is the specific allegations that the matter was conciliated by the police. Taking into consideration f the future of her two minor children, she accepted the advise of the police. But on 22.11.2023, she was thrown out from the matrimonial house by the petitioner. Therefore, she lodged first information. All the allegations are serious in nature and the petitioner required for interrogation. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:20072 CRL.P No. 2086 of 2024 Therefore, I am of the opinion that on considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.