: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
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
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
BSR
