SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anil Kumar P S vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 October, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6420 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

ANIL KUMAR P.S.
S/O LATE PAPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT. No.63, 1 BLOCK
RAMANNA BLOCK
NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560096.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE
REP. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BANGALORE-01.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J. 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 CR.No.110/2019 of Basavanagudi Women
Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence P/U/S 498-A,
354 R/W Sec.34 of SectionIPC and Sec.3 and 4 of SectionDowry Prohibition
Act.
2

This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-

State and perused the records.

2. On a detailed complaint lodged by complainant by

name Preethi, wife of accused, police have registered a case

in Crime No.110/2019 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, Section354 read with 34 of SectionIPC and also under

Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. There

is no dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and

the complainant was performed on 31.03.2019 and

thereafter, the complainant started living with the petitioner

and other members of his family. It is alleged that the

accused – petitioner has been ill-treating and harassing her

sexually by various methods and also he used to assault her

and ill-treat her for various other reasons. But, there is no

allegations with regard to demand of any dowry or demand

of any other things. What exactly is the reason for his ill-

treatment and harassment is not clearly forthcoming from
3

the complaint. The reason for that has to be established

during the course of investigation. The other petitioners who

are no other than the mother and sister of the petitioner,

have already been released on bail by the Trial Court in

Crl.Misc.No.6767/2019. It is too short a time to understand

themselves because the marriage took place on 31.03.2019

and complaint came to be filed on 23.07.2019 within a span

of about four months. Therefore, what exactly is the reason

for the differences between the husband and wife has to be

taken into consideration and thrashed out during the course

of investigation and trial. Particularly, in matrimonial

matters, the Court should be slow in sending accused

persons to jail so as to completely shut down reasonable

probabilities of compromise between the parties. However,

the petitioner is sent to jail. The exploration of possibility of

settlement may be curtailed. Therefore, even though the

allegations are very seriously made with regard to ill-

treatment but it was not with regard to any demand of

dowry. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances,

it is a fit case where parties can explore the possibility of

settlement between themselves. The offence under Section
4

Section354 is bailable in nature. However, the offence under

Section 498A is non-bailable but it is not seriously

punishable in nature. Therefore, under the above said facts

and circumstances, in my opinion, if the petitioner is granted

bail with stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of

justice. Hence, the following order:

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall

be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection

with Crime No.110/2019 of Basavanagudi Women Police

Station, subject to the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the
Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall
execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction
of the concerned Investigating Officer.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the
investigation or tampering the prosecution
witnesses.

iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the investigation,
and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer
as and when called for.

5

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Investigating Officer without prior permission, till
the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three
months whichever is earlier.

v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a
week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 am and
5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a
period of two months or till the charge sheet is
filed, whichever is earlier.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RV

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation