Shivakumar D.B vs State By Chandralayout Police, Bangalore, Represented By Spp High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore - 560009

M G Uma, J

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.245/2024 of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City District pending on the file of the learned 46th Additional CMM Court, Bangalore City registered for the offences punishable under Section 307, 498A, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant one Gayathri.

Heard Sri. Raju C.N., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, 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 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

The petitioner is the sole accused. The wife of the petitioner filed the first information making allegation regarding commission of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Admittedly, the informant has not sustained any injuries. It is stated that the petitioner has filed a petition seeking dissolution of his marriage with the informant, which has resulted in the incident. It is stated that the petitioner was apprehended on the date of incident i.e., on 18.04.2024. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for further investigation. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.245 of 2024 of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.