Vidyaranya S/O Dundayya Hiremath vs The State Of Karnataka, on 12 June, 2017

:1:

[IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101050/2017

BETWEEN:

VIDYARANAYA S/O DUNDAYYA HIREMATH
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O KAMANAKER, BUDIHAL,
TQ: B. BAGEWADI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT ADV. )
AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY THE CPI,
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD WOMEN POLICE
STATION, THROUGH SPL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CASE OF HIS ARREST PURSUANT TO CRIME
NO.13 OF 2017 OF WOMEN POLICE STATION HUBBALLI-
DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498(A), 376, 318, 504, 506, 494 READ WITH SEC.
:2:

35 OF IPC AND UNDER SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory

bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the

petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest of the alleged

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 376, 318,

504, 506, 494 of IPC read with 35 of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent

Police Station Crime No.13/2017.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that

the complainant married petitioner/accused No.1 in the

year 2013, even earlier to that she was knowing accused

READ  Gurbux Singh Vs. Harminder Kaur on 8 October, 2010

No.1; the complainant and accused No.1 were studied

in the same college. On 21.08.2007, accused No.1 took

her to a rented premises and had sexual intercourse

with her though he was aware that she was aged about
:3:

16 years; accused No.1 used to give assurance to her

that he is going to marry her and used to have sexual

intercourse with her. Thereafter, accused No.1 started

residing from November 2009 in the room belonging to

his friend. It is further alleged that she came to know

that she is pregnant in the month of June and accused

No.1 along with his friend took her to one Doctor and

forcibly got her aborted. It is also alleged that accused

No.1 gave mobile phone and he is to have contact with

her, at that time, she was studying in V Semester of

Diploma. There was marriage talks for the marriage of

the complainant with accused No.1. Subsequently, they

got married and it is registered in the Office of the Sub-

registrar, Dharwad on 28.08.2013. Thereafter, accused

No.1 started to insist her to bring dowry amount of

Rs.60,000/- and he was also giving ill-treatment and

harassment to her along with his family members. On

the basis of the said complaint, case came to be

registered for the alleged offences.
:4:

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the

learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and the order passed by the

READ  Naresh Kumar & Ors vs State on 4 August, 2014

learned Sessinos Judge rejecting the bail application of

the petitioner and other materials produced along with

the petition.

5. The allegations in the very complaint shows

that the act of alleged forcible sexual intercourse is said

to have taken plce in the year 2007. Subsequently,

there was marriage between the complainant and

accused No.1 in the year 2013; the couple resided

together in the house of petitioner/accused No.1.

thereafter, accused No.1 started to give ill-treatment

and harassment insisting the complainant to bring

dowry amount of Rs.60,000/-.

:5:

6. Looking to these materials placed on reocrd,

the alleged offence started in the year 2007, but till

10.04.2017 no complaint was lodged by the

complainant and it is only on 10.04.2017 i.e., after the

lapse of 10 years from the date of alleged date of forcible

sexual intercourse, she has come up with the said

complaint. It is contended by the petitioner that he is

innocent and not committed the alleged offence and

only to harass the petitioner false complaint has been

lodged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that other accused persons have already

been granted bail. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise

discretion in favour of the petitioner and to grant

anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent Police is directed to enlarge the petitioner on

bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.13/2017
:6:

registered for the above said offence, subject to the

following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish
one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.

iii. Petitioner has to make himself
available before the IO for
interrogation, as and when called for.

iv. Petitioner has to appear before the
concerned Court within 30 days from
the date of this order and to execute
the personal bond and the surety
bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

READ  Smt Jhammu Devi vs State on 25 July, 2017

BSR

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *