SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dr Prasanna Kumar vs State By Sadashiva Nagar Police … on 4 June, 2018







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)


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.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:


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

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


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.

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

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

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:


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;

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.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

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