SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Pushpa vs State Of Karnataka on 8 March, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8591/2018

BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Pushpa,
W/o. Late Vijayakumar,
Aged about 70 years
R/at No.504, S.L.V. Apartment,
K.R.S. Road, Mysuru – 570 002.

2. Sri. Rakesh,
S/o. Late Vijayakumar,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.504, S.L.V. Apartment,
K.R.S. Road,
Mysuru – 570 002.
…Petitioners
(By Sri.B.A. Belliappa, Advocate)

AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Subramanyapura Police Station,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001. …Respondent

(By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP)
-2-

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.330/2018 of
Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 448,
365 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

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

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release them on

anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime

No.330/2018 of Subramanyapura Police Station for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 504,

448, 365, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and also

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for

petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State.

-3-

3. The genesis of the complaint is that the

complainant Smt. G.S. Sahana is the wife of accused

No.1 and she had married one Sri. A. Srinivas prior to

the marriage with accused No.1 herein, which ended in

a separation allegedly the first husband being impotent

and thereafter, the complainant is married to accused

No.1 on 04.09.2014. Accused No.1 is the son of the

petitioner No.1. At the time of marriage, some gold and

cash was given in the form of dowry. Thereafter, the

dispute arose between the husband and wife. It is

further alleged that accused No.1 was impotent and did

not perform the matrimonial obligations due to the said

disability and subsequently with the aid and assistance

of the mother-in-law and others she had to undergo the

process of IVF (in vitro fertilization) treatment to beget

child and thereafter had a female child. It is further

alleged that the petitioners and accused No.1 have

harassed and assaulted the complainant both physically

and mentally and on 26.09.2018, when she was in her
-4-

parents house, the accused persons came and abused

her with filthy language and forcefully kidnapped her,

her daughter and even they took her mother and put

her into the car but her mother by pushing the door

came out of the said car. It is further alleged that

accused No.4 confined her, however she escaped and

went to the police station and filed the complaint.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the alleged incident has taken

place on 26.09.2018 but the complaint has been

registered on 20.10.2018, there is inordinate delay in

filing the complaint. It is further submitted that already

accused No.1 has been released on bail. Under the

similar facts and circumstance, on the ground of parity,

petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail. It is

further submitted that the contents of the complaint

indicates that it is only an attempt and no such incident

has taken place and a false complaint has been
-5-

registered against the accused petitioners. The alleged

offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the

petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the

complainant and their family members have given the

dowry in the form of gold and cash and even an amount

of Rs.4,50,000/- has been transferred by the

complainant to the account of accused No.1. Further it

is submitted that the accused persons including the

present petitioners have tortured the complainant both

physically and mentally and even they have tried to kill

and kidnap her, her mother and her daughter. There is

ample material to show that the petitioners/accused

Nos.2 and 3 have involved in the said crime. If they are

released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution
-6-

evidence and they may threaten the complainant also.

On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing

for both the parties and perused the records.

7. On close reading of the contents of the

complaint and other materials, it indicates that the

alleged incident has taken place on 26.09.2018 but the

complaint has been registered on 20.10.2018. There is

delay in filing the complaint. As could be seen from the

complaint, the entire complaint does not discloses

whether it is only an attempt to kidnap the mother of

the complainant, complainant and her daughter? is a

matter which has to be considered and appreciated only

at the time of trial. The alleged offences are not

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Already

accused No.1 is released on bail and serious allegations

are made in respect of accused No.1. On the ground of
-7-

parity, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled

to be released on bail.

8. In the light of discussions held by me above,

petition is allowed and the petitioners/accused Nos.2

and 3 are enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of

their arrest in Crime No.330/2018 of Subramanyapura

Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable

under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 448, 365 and 323 read

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 subject to the following

conditions:

1. Each of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and
3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum
of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only)
with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

2. They shall surrender before the
Investigation Agency within 15 days from
today.

-8-

3. They shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence either directly or indirectly.

4. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Court without prior permission.

5. Petitioner No.2 shall mark his attendance
once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and
5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police
station and petitioner No.1 shall mark her
attendance, once in 15 days between 10.00
a.m., and 5.00 p.m., nearby police station
in Mysuru where she is residing, till the
charge sheet is filed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS

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