KUSUMANJALI D. Vs. VINAY R.S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-complainant is before this Court seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents-accused Nos.1 and 3, by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-46), vide order dtd. 3/10/2022 passed in Crl.Misc.No.9746/2022, in Crime No.98/2022 of Gangammana Gudi police station, registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P Act'), on the basis of first information lodged by the informant -Kusumanjali D.

(2.) Heard Sri. Kumaraswamy B.N., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Shivananda V.N ., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri. K.Rahul Rai, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.4 -State. Perused the materials on record.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 being accused Nos.1 to 3 were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Session's Judge in Crl.Misc.No.9746/2022 without taking into consideration various instances referred to in the first information. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ms.Y Vs. State of Rajasthan and another ,(2022) 9 SCC 269. to contend that if the relevant factors which would have to be taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail, have not been taken note of or the bail is found to have granted on irrelevant considerations, such order granting bail is to be cancelled.