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.
8ii. 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