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