SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Hameed K A vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10035/2017
BETWEEN:

HAMEED K.A.
S/O ALI K.A.
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT KOTTAMUDI
HODAVADA VILLAGE, PALOOR POST,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 221. … PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRASANNA D.P., ADV.,)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NAPOKLU POLICE 571221
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU – 560 001 …RESPONDENT

(BY K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.160/2017
OF NAPOKLU P.S., KODAGU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A, 313 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.
2

THIS CRIMINAL 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 and to direct the respondent-police to release the

petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313, 34 of

IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,1961

registered in respondent police station Crime

No.160/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made his

submission referring to the averments made in the
3

complaint and also other materials that there is no

prima facie case against the present petitioner of his

involvement in committing the alleged offence. He

further submitted that the present petitioner is falsely

implicated in the said case and false allegations are

made against him. He also further submitted that even

the petitioner has filed a complaint against the wife and

other family members and the other accused have been

already granted bail. It is the contention of the

petitioner that as and when required petitioner’s wife

was taken to the hospital for treatment and the

petitioner never insisted his wife to consume tablets for

termination of pregnancy. The counsel further submits

that the petitioner is ready to abide by any reasonable

conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he

requested to allow this bail petition.
4

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposes the petition and submits that agaisnt

accused No.1 there is also allegation that forcibly the

petitioner along with his sister made to consume the

tablet for termination of pregnancy. Therefore there is

mis carriage to the complainant. Hence he made

submission that when such serious allegations is there

against the petitioner, he is not entitled to grant

anticipatory bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record.

6. Looking to the allegations made in the

complaint and those allegations are serious allegations

made against the petitioner-accused No.1 who is the

husband and he along with his sister Umaida forcibly

caught hold of the complainant tightly and made her to
5

open her mouth and they put the tablets for termination

of pregnancy of the complainant and in the complaint

she has stated that when she was suffering, the

petitioner has not taken her to the hospital for

treatment and abortion happened.

Therefore, looking to those allegations made in the

complaint, I am of the considered view that the matter

requires custodial interrogation of the present

petitioner-accused No.1 and it is not a fit case for grant

of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation