SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rahul S/O Umesh Dubey vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101806/2019

BETWEEN:

RAHUL S/O UMESH DUBEY
AGE:31 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O # 1-1-770, FLAT NO.101, BLOCK B
VISHNU RESIDENCY, HYDERABAD-50020.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.CHETAN MUNNOLI AND SRI. VISHWANATH
BICHAGATTTI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HUBBALLI-DHARWAD WOMEN
POLICE STATION, BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY
BAIL IN CRIME NO.42/2019 REGISTERED WITH HUBBALL-
DHARWAD WOMEN POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 420, 498A, 504 READ
WITH SECTION 34 OF SectionIPC INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory

bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.42/2019

registered at Hubballi-Dharwad Women Police Station

for the offences punishable under Sections 323, Section420,

Section498A, Section504, Section506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. The facts leading to this petition are that on

the complaint filed by the Smt. Shweta W/o Rahul

Dubey, the police have registered the case. The

allegations are that the petitioner has received a sum of

Rs.3 lakhs and gold ornaments and other silver articles

at the time of the marriage. On 21.08.2017, the

petitioner was quarrelling with his mother-in-law. On

enquiry by the complainant, the petitioner has pushed

and has also assaulted the complainant. The petitioner

being impotent is in a gay relationship with some of

male friends. When the complainant enquired about
3

the same, the petitioner and his family members have

subjected the complainant to cruelty and have abused

the complainant. On registering the complaint, the

police officials are making attempts to arrest the

petitioner.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State, perused the prosecution papers.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the allegations made in the complaint are false and

baseless. He further submitted that no records are

forthcoming to show that the father of the complainant

has given cash of Rs.3 lakhs and gold and silver

articles. On account of matrimonial dispute, the

petitioner has falsely implicated in this case while

making frivolous allegations. In the event of arrest, the

petitioner would be put to great hardship and injustice.
4

5. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State submitted that the petitioner being

the husband and his family members have subjected

the complainant to cruelty for the purpose of getting

more dowry and they have also physically assaulted the

complainant. There are no grounds to show that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case.

6. As could be seen from the complaint

averments, there are allegations that the petitioner has

received a sum of Rs.3 lakhs and gold and silver articles

whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner has

produced bank statement showing that he has sent the

amount to the account of his mother-in-law to repay the

gold loan and to clear other debts. Another allegation is

that the petitioner being impotent has got gay

relationship with other male friends. In addition to that

the petitioner and his family members have abused and

assaulted the complainant.

5

7. There are no specific allegations about

harassment caused for getting dowry and the present

case is not registered under the relevant provisions of

the SectionDowry Prohibition Act.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that on account of matrimonial

difference of opinion, false complaint has been

registered and the police officials are making attempts

to arrest the petitioner at the instigation of the

complainant’s father who is a police officer.

9. Generally, anticipatory bail would be granted

in the anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases. Power

to refuse the anticipatory bail is not to be exercised as if

punishment before the trial Court is imposed. At this

stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion about

the allegations made in the complaint. The only

material consideration in such a situation is whether
6

the accused would be readily available for trial or not.

In the instant case, the petitioner has undertaken to

abide by the conditions to be imposed. The objection of

the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the

petitioner would tamper the prosecution witnesses. The

said objection may be set-right by imposing stringent

conditions.

10. As already stated above, the grounds stated

in the bail petition and the submission made by the

learned counsel for the petitioner goes to prove the

apprehension of the petitioner regarding his arrest and

detention.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case

and the grounds urged in the bail petition, the petition

deserves to be allowed subject to following terms and

conditions.

7

12. In view of the discussions made above, I

proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer of the concerned police station

within fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this order on any working day and on his

appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate

the petitioner and enlarge him on bail on the same day

and subject to the following conditions:

i. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for

a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only)

with two sureties for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
8

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the

Investigating Officer and the Court as and when

required.

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the

investigation.

iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or allure any

of the prosecution witnesses.

Violation of the above conditions would result in

cancellation of the bail automatically.

Sd/-

JUDGE
JTR

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