SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Sheik Imran vs State Of Karnataka on 6 April, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1863 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

SRI SHEIK IMRAN
S/O LATE S.ILIYAS,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT RTC COLONY,
HINDUPUR TOWN AND TALUK,
ANDRA PRADESH – 575 201. … PETITIONER

(BY SRI S.P.BABAJAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
BAGEPALLI POLICE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
BY STATE P.P. – 560 001
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA. … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P 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.273/2017 OF
BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
2

FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323,
498A, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT ETC.,

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The

petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The

respondent police registered a case against the petitioner

in Crime No.273/2017 and other accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC

and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The wife alleged that after her marriage with

the petitioner she was being continuously harassed and

tortured by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner

at the time of marriage stated that he was working in a

Company and getting a monthly salary of Rs.80,000/-. But

it was false. Actually he was a gambler and spendthrift.

For gambling purpose he used to put pressure on the wife
3

to bring money from her parents house. About 1 ½ months

ago, the petitioner shifted his family to Chikkaballapur.

There also he used to quarrel and on one day he assaulted

her and put life threat on her. Another allegation is that

the petitioner’s brother Sheik Rizwan, the petitioner’s

grand-father M.K.Bazajan and his sons namely,

Rahamathulla and Habib Ulla were supporting the

petitioner to ill-treat the complainant.

3. Heard petitioner’s counsel and the learned

High Court Government Pleader.

4. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the

petition for anticipatory bail. If the complaint is read, it

becomes very clear that soon after the marriage, the

complainant has been the victim of harassment by the

petitioner. I do not find any chance of false implication as

no wife goes to the extent of imputing her own husband

unless there are compelling circumstances. The

investigation is not yet complete. Moreover, the Hon’ble
4

Supreme Court has clearly laid down in the case of

ARNESH KUMAR vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

reported in (2014)8 SCC 273 that whenever the police

register a complaint with relation to offence under Section

498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused

shall not be arrested unnecessarily and the Magistrate

shall not authorize detention casually and mechanically.

This being the law in relation to the offences alleged

against the petitioner, the apprehension expressed by him

of being arrested, does not appear to be well founded. In

the result anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Hence, the

petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Rsk/-

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