S D Sairam @ S D Umesh vs The State Of Karnataka By on 7 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

Criminal Petition No.7436/2017

BETWEEN

S D SAIRAM @ S D UMESH
S/O S.R.DEVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
R/O SAMUDRADAHALLY,
HIRIYURU TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-572143
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI R B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
ABBINAHOLE POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577546

(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001)

… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE
PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN
CR.NO.187/2017 ABBINAHOLE P.S., CHITRADURGA
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 494, 495 OF IPC
AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P 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 the Cr.P.C. seeking

anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-Police to

release the petitioner-accused No.1 in case of his

arrest for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 494 and 495 of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in

respondent-Police Station in Crime No.187/2017.
3

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that the

complainant married one Sairam @ Umesh on

13.11.2015 and after 15 days of the marriage, she

left the husband’s house since her husband and in-

laws were ill-treating her demanding the property to

be transferred into their name in lieu of dowry.

Though the efforts were made to settle the matter the

accused persons continued harassment. In the

meanwhile, the complainant’s husband filed the

petition seeking divorce as against the complainant

and it is the further allegation that accused No.1

contracted second marriage with one Kavyashree and

after marriage he begotten a child on 19.04.2017.

Hence, a private complaint came to be filed which

was referred to the police.

4

3. Heard the arguments of the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1

and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

for the Respondent-State.

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the

bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials

produced in the case. So also the copy of the M.C.

petition bearing No.6/2016 on the file of the Senior

Civil Judge at Hiriyur. The said petition is filed by

the petitioner i.e., accused No.1 herein against his

wife on the ground of nullity of marriage filed under

Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. Subsequent to filing of this petition, the

present complaint came to be filed. Hence, petitioner

accused No.1 contended that there is a false

implication because he filed the M.C. petition. He
5

also contended that the complainant filed the false

complaint against him making false allegations. He

also contended that he is innocent and not involved

in committing the alleged offences and ready to abide

by any reasonable conditions imposed by the Court.

All the alleged offences are triable by the Magistrate

Court and they are not exclusively punishable with

death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the

opinion that petitioner can be granted with bail.

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present

petitioner-accused No.1 on bail in the event of his arrest

for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A,

494, 495 of IPC registered in respondent-police station in

Crime No.187/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute a personal
bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty
6

Thousand Only) and has to furnish one
solvent surety for the likesum 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 Investigating Officer for
interrogation, as and when called for
and to cooperate with the further
investigation.

iv. The 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
JT/-

Leave a Comment

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