SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Athavur Rehman vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2012

Karnataka High Court Athavur Rehman vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 December, 2012Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.KESHAVANARAYANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7221 OF 2012 BETWEEN:

Athavur Rehman,

S/o. Ameer Jan @ M.D. Ameer,

Aged about 26 years,

Occ: Electrician,

No.72, 5th Cross,

Manjunath Nagar,

New Guddahalli,

Mysore Road,

Bangalore – 560 026.

…Petitioner

(By Sri K.A. Chandrashekar, Advocate) AND:

The State of Karnataka

By the Police of Basavanagudi,

Women’s Police Station,

Bangalore City – 560 026.

…Respondent

(By Shri B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, HCGP.,) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.6/2012 of 2

Basavanagudi Women, P.S., Bangalore City, which is registered for the offence P/U/S 498A and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. This Criminal Petition coming on for orders on this day, the Court made the following: – ORDER

Apprehending his arrest by Basavanagudi Women Police in connection with the case registered in Crime No.6/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the petitioner has presented this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking relief of anticipatory bail.

2. According to the case of the prosecution, the aforesaid case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Ayeesha Siddik, wife of this petitioner on 15.10.2012. According to the allegations made in the complaint, the marriage of the complainant with the petitioner was solemnized on 20.02.2011 and after the marriage, she joined her husband in the matrimonial home and for about a week she was looked 3

after well and thereafter, she was subjected to all kinds of humiliations and insults in the matrimonial home and she was driven out of the matrimonial home by coercing her to bring dowry and therefore, she is living in her parental home. Case came to be registered against this petitioner and 10 others. On coming to know of the registration of the case, the other relatives of the husband of the complainant first approached the learned Sessions Judge under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The said petition came to be allowed and all other persons arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 11 were granted relief of anticipatory bail. Thereafter, this petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge for similar relief. However, same came to be rejected mainly on the ground that if he is really an innocent, he also would have joined those accused persons for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The petition is opposed by respondent-State. 4

4. I have heard both the sides and perused the records made available.

5. Allegations made in the complaint would prima facie indicate that, at the time of marriage apart from cash Rs.3.00 lakhs, two wheeler and also gold ornaments were received by the bride groom as dowry. The allegations made in the complaint further prima facie indicates that for about one year prior lodging of the report, the complainant has been residing in her parental home. Having regard to the allegations made in the complaint, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of any of the offences alleged. The ground on which the learned Sessions Judge refused to grant relief of anticipatory bail to this petitioner, is perverse. Merely because the petitioner did not join the other accused persons in filing the petition for bail, the Court cannot jump to the conclusion that he is not innocent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no reasonable 5

grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged. Offences alleged are not punishable with death or life imprisonment.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner has been arraigned as accused in the aforesaid case, registered for non bailable offences. Therefore, his apprehension that he is likely to be arrested is well founded.

7. Hence the petition is allowed. The respondent – police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in Crime No.6/2012 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to further conditions that, i) Upon such arrest and release, the petitioner for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called 6

upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case.

ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case.

SD/-

JUDGE

GH

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 © 2021 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