IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2017
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1834 OF 2017
Aged about 34 years,
R/a Somathanahalli Village,
Bengaluru Rural District – 562 129.
(By Smt.K.Nalina, Advocate for
Sri.S.K.Venkat Reddy, Advocate)
State of Karnataka
By Channarayapatna Police,
Bengaluru Rural Dist – 562 135.
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengalruru – 560 001.
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.101/2016 of
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the
2. The petitioner apprehends arrest by the
respondent-police in Crime No.101/2016 registered
against him and his family members in respect of the
offence punishable under Section 498A R/W 34 of IPC and
3. The co-accused are on bail. The allegation is,
the deceased was married to the petitioner for one and
half years. During the marriage, dowry in cash was also
given. Subsequently, all the accused coerced the deceased
for additionally dowry. There was a panchayat to console
the accused and the father of the deceased transferred
immovable property standing in his name to the
petitioner. The deceased committed suicide in the
matrimonial home by consuming pesticide. She expired on
04.10.2016 in the hospital while on treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in
fact there was no dispute between the husband and the
wife. During the spot mahazar, Investigating Officer has
seized a death note left behind by the deceased wherein
she attributes the torture on her by her aunt and uncle.
Since the petitioner apprehends torture by the
respondent-police, he may be granted anticipatory bail for
a limited period. So that he can appear before the
Investigating Officer and convince his innocence.
5. Learned HCGP while opposing the petition
submits that from the complaint allegation there is
sufficient material against the petitioner in respect of the
offences under Dowry Prohibition Act, and also for offence
Investigating Officer he is successfully avoiding him since
October 2016. Hence, not entitled for bail.
6. In the light of the above submissions and also
the complaint allegation, it is to be noted that all was not
well during the life time of the deceased. There was a
panchayat in respect of the dispute in the presence of the
elders of the village. In pursuance of which immovable
property was transferred to the name of this petitioner.
The father of the deceased in his complaint alleges that
the deceased was tortured for dowry in matrimonial home
and she used to divulge her plight to her mother.
7. In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case to
exercise jurisdiction under Section 438 of CR.P.C. Hence,
petition is rejected.