IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2759/2018
BETWEEN:
Dr. Prasanna Kumar
S/o Thimmarayappa
Aged about 35 years
R/at No.143, 7th Cross
Sanjay Nagar
Bengaluru – 560 092 …Petitioner
(By Sri Y.R.Sadasiva Reddy, Senior Advocate for
Sri Praveen C P, Advocate)
AND:
State by Sadashiva Nagar
Police Station-Represented by
Its SPP, High Court Building
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru – 560 001 … Respondent
(By Sri S. Vishwa Murthy, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in
Crime No.49/2018 of Sadashivanagar Police Station,
Bengaluru city for the offence punishable under sections
498A, 307, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader has
not filed any statement of objections, but has orally
opposed the petition.
3. Petitioner is the husband of the complainant.
Their marriage was performed on 13.06.2016. The
petitioner as well as the complainant are doctors by
profession. In the complaint it is alleged that at the time
of marriage and subsequent thereto there were demands
for dowry and large amount of cash and things were given
to the petitioner and his parents by way of dowry. It is
further alleged that the complainant was consistently ill-
treated and harassed in the matrimonial house by the
petitioner as well as his parents and his relatives. The
further case of the complainant is that, on account of the
3
serious difference between the relatives, she was
constrained to set up a separate house and since June-
2017 the petitioner and complainant have been residing
separately.
4. It is alleged that on 30.03.2018, at about
8.00am, when the complainant asked the petitioner as to
what she had to prepare for the breakfast, the petitioner is
alleged to have assaulted the complainant with hands and
also squeezed her neck and hit her head on the Tea-poy.
When the complainant called the Hoysala Police, the
brother-in-law of the petitioner took her to his house.
Hence, the complainant has sought action against the
petitioner as well as her in-laws and other relatives, who
are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 10 in the FIR.
5. A reading of the complaint indicates that the
matrimonial relationship between the complainant and the
petitioner is severely strained; there are serious
allegations of dowry demand as well as cruelty and ill-
treatment. There are also allegations of physical assault.
4
6. Even though FIR is registered for the offence
punishable under Section 307 of IPC, a reading of the
wound certificate, made available by the learned counsel
for the petitioner indicates that the complainant had
sustained the following injuries:
i. Bruise on lateral aspect of arm
ii. small bruise on lateral aspect of hand
iii. finger mark on the ventral aspect of left
forearm
7. There is nothing in the said wound certificate
to indicate that the complainant had sustained any injuries
on her neck as stated in the complaint.
8. Having regard to the circumstance in which the
alleged incident has taken place, there appears to be some
exaggeration in the complaint. However, the entire
incident having been taken place in the matrimonial
context, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in the case of Lalitha Kumari and the subsequent
decisions, it is not appropriate to straightaway arrest the
persons accused of the alleged offences. The law
5
contemplates a preliminary enquiry into the matter. In
that view of the matter and having regard to the overall
circumstances of the case, in order to provide an
opportunity to the parties to arrive at any compromise in
future as well as to facilitate the investigation and in the
interest of justice, it is advisable to admit the petitioner to
bail subject to conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
The petitioner is directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this
order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer
shall interrogate him and shall enlarge him on bail on
the same day subject to the following conditions:-
i. He shall appear before the Court as and
when necessary;
ii. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure
the prosecution witnesses in any manner;
6
iii. The petitioner shall mark his attendance in
Sadashivanagara Police Station, Bengaluru
on the last day of the calendar month until
submission of the charge sheet.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Kmv*