SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri.Jayavardhan vs State By K.R.Puram Police Station on 29 May, 2014

Karnataka High Court Sri.Jayavardhan vs State By K.R.Puram Police Station on 29 May, 2014Author: B.Manohar

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2808 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

SRI.JAYAVARDHAN

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

S/O.SRI.GOVARDHAN

RESIDING AT NO.4

JAYAVARDHAN NILAYA

2ND FLOOR, R.R.LAYOUT

AYYAPPANAGAR, K.R.PURAM

BANGALORE – 560 036.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI RAVISHANKAR.C.R., ADV.,)

AND

STATE BY K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION

K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT

BANGALORE – 01.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.176/2014 OF K.R.PURAM P.S., BANGALORE CITY, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506 R/W.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.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 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.176/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the K.R.Puram Police Station on the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner – Smt.Roopa.M alleging ill-treatment and demand of dowry by the petitioner and his parents.

2. In the complaint, the complainant specifically contended that herself and the petitioner got married on 04-02-2010 at Mangala Kalyana Mantapa, Koramangala, Bangalore. At the time of marriage, a cash of Rs.50,000/-, gold ornaments and clothes were given to the petitioner. Inspite of the same, petitioner and his parents were demanding dowry and ill-treating her. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused persons.

3

3. Initially, the petitioner and his parents obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.25237/2014. After registration of the case, the petitioner and his parents once again filed a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.Nos.25424/2014 and 25463/2014. The said petitions were allowed by the FTC-III, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore and granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., father and mother of the petitioner. However, rejected the bail insofar as the petitioner is concerned, on the ground that he is husband of the complainant and that he has harassed his wife and hence, he is not entitled for bail. In view of that, petitioner has filed the present petitioner seeking for bail.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the marriage of the petitioner, the wife demanded to set up a separate house for their stay and she was not willing to stay with her in-laws. Since the petitioner being the only son to his parents, he refused to set up a separate house. In view of that, the wife has filed a complaint alleging demand of dowry. Infact, the petitioner and his parents had not demanded dowry at any point of time. Prior 4

to the marriage, the petitioner and the complainant were loving each other and with the consent of both the sides, they got married. It is further contended that to set up a separate house, the complainant used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner for trivial issues and the same was ended with the petition under Section 498-A of IPC. The petitioner is a permanent resident of K.R.Puram, Bangalore. He is working in a private company and at no point of time, he has ill- treated the complainant. Hence, the counsel for the petitioner seeks for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has opposed for grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the wife made a complaint against the petitioner and her in-laws under Section 498-A of IPC with regard to ill-treatment and demand of dowry. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any bail and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused 5

the order passed by the FTC-III, Bangalore and also relevant records.

7. The records clearly disclose that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was solemnized on 04-02-2010. They led a happy marital life. However, the complainant was not willing to stay with her in-laws. Hence, she demanded to set up a separate house. However, the petitioner refused to do so, on the ground that he is the only son to look after his age old parents and he cannot leave his parents during their old age. In view of that, difference of opinion arose between the husband and wife and ended in filing of the complaint for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC. Whether the petitioner had demanded the dowry and ill-treated the complainant, is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. The complaint has been made against the petitioner and also age old parents of the petitioner. They had approached the Court initially for anticipatory bail and obtained the same. Subsequently, after registration of the case, they got anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.25463/2014. The petitioner is similarly placed. Therefore, I am of the 6

opinion that the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506 r/w.Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the K.R.Puram Police Station in Crime No.176/2014, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five

Thousand only) with one solvent

sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a personal surety who has got ID proof and relevant records in their names; (iii) The petitioner shall not abscond, shall not give threat or inducement

to the prosecution witnesses and

complainant so as to tamper the

evidence.

7

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating officer within 15

days from the date of this order to

get bail and to execute the bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VMB

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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