Karnataka High Court Sri D Ravikumar vs State By on 27 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1456 OF 2014 BETWEEN:

1. SRI.D.RAVIKUMAR

S/O.LATE DEVAPPA

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

2. SRI.D.SRINIVAS

S/O.LATE DEVAPPA

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

3. SRI.D.ARUNKUMAR

S/O.LATE DEVAPPA

AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT.NO.3, 1ST ‘C’ CROSS BEHIND BBMP WARD OFFICE

DOMMALUR LAYOUT

BANGALORE – 560 071.

4. SMT.BHYGYVATHI

W/O.NAGARAJ

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

5. SRI.NAGARAJ

S/O.LATE SOMAPPA

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

C/O.DHOMODHAR

BOTH ARE R/AT.NO.167, 4TH MAIN

DOMMALUR LAY-OUT

BANGALORE – 560 071.

2

6. SMT.LAXMAMMA

W/O.LATE DEVAPPA

AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

R/AT.NO.3, 1ST ‘C’ CROSS

BEHIND BBMP WARD OFFICE

DOMMALUR LAY-OUT

BANGALORE – 560 071.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.HARISH K.V., ADV.,)

AND:

STATE BY K.R.PURAM P.S.

K.R.PURAM

BANGALORE – 560 036.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.76/14 OF K.R.PURAM P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER

This is the petition filed by the petitioners – accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under 3

Sections 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in the respondent – police station Crime No.76/2014.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the averments made in the complaint are; that the first petitioner is the wedded husband of the complainant and their marriage was solemnized on 29.06.2011. After, the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant, they lived together with the matrimonial house in No.136-E, North 4th Lane, I.T.I Township Dooravaninagar at Bangalore. First petitioner lead the family. The petitioner and the complainant lived with each other only for 1½ years, after that the complainant goes to her mother’s house for the delivery and in the wedlock child was born. Now, at the age of one year after the delivery, complainant came back to her matrimonial house. But, the petitioners started to pick up quarrel with the complainant and they were not co- operating with the complainant to lead her peaceful 4

marital life in the house of the petitioners. It is also alleged in the complaint that the petitioner started insisting the complainant to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from the parental place for the purpose of completing the house and for the purpose of the naming ceremony of the child. There is also allegation that the fist petitioner – husband of the complainant use to come to the house in a drunken state consuming alcohol and pick up quarrel with her also. When she had been to her native place for her delivery, he used to bring the other woman to the quarters. Hence, the complainant made the allegations that there is an ill-treatment and harassment to bring more dowry amount from the parental place. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the husband as well as other family members for the alleged offences.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners – accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State. 5

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments draw the attention of this Court to the averments made in the Court and made the submission that the averments itself goes to show that false allegations against the husband as well as other family members. Learned counsel made the submission that the sisters of the petitioner No.1 are married and they are residing separately with their husbands, even then, against them also the false allegations are made that they also used to give ill-treatment and harassment to the complainant. Learned counsel made the submission that though she went to the native place for the purpose of delivery, she did not come back and after the lapse of two months she made such a false complaint. Counsel made the submission that as the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case, they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court, hence, they may be admitted to bail. 6

5. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant are supported by the statement of the parents as well as the other witnesses whose statement has been recorded by the Investigating Officer. He further made the submission that petitioners are absconded and not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation. Therefore, he made the submission that the further investigation will be hampered. The Investigating Officer has to collect some more material and proceed with the investigation. Allegations made against the petitioners are all serious in nature. Therefore, they are not entitled to be granted with bail.

6. I have perused the averments made in the complaint, FIR, and the averments made in the bail petition and other materials placed on record, so also the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application filed by the present petitioners. 7

7. It is no doubt true, in the complaint allegations have been made against the petitioners that they were abusing the complainant and whenever, she contacted them over phone, the petitioners abusing them in filthy language. They gave ill-treatment and harassment insisting her to bring Rs.3,00,000/- from the parental house. These allegations have been denied by the petitioners in the petition and they are innocent and it is the contention of the petitioners that after going to her parental place for the purpose of delivery of the children she kept mum for a continuously, for a period of nine months. Thereafter, filed the present complaint. The offences alleged are all triable by the Magistrate Court and not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It is the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioners were not available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation. Therefore, to secure the presence before the Investigating Officer as well as before the Trial Court, conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the 8

prosecution. Therefore looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioners to be admitted to bail.

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent – police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in the respondent – police station Crime No.76/2014, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand only) with one solvent

surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. 9

(iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for. (iv) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond, as well as the surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH