1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5128 OF 2018
BETWEEN
Sri. Kiran Kumar M.,
S/o. Late H.Pranesh Rao,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at No.738, 3rd Main,
9th B Cross, Pipe Line Road,
Near Kere Venkataramana Temple,
ISRO Layout, Bangalore-560078.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. N.Madesh, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka
By Kumar Swamy Layout Police
Bangalore City,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru-560 001
…Respondent
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, 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 Crime No.252/2018 of Kumaraswamy
Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 509,
2
354(A), 354(c) and 307 read with 149 of IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The
respondent police have registered a case in
Cr.No.252/2018 in relation to offences punishable under
Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506, 509, 354A, 354C and 307
read with Section 149 IPC.
2. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the High Court
Government Pleader.
3. The complainant is non other than the wife of the
petitioner. Their marriage took place on 23.02.2017 at
Bengaluru. There are allegations that the petitioner
demanded dowry at the time of marriage. His demand
was satisfied, but he was not happy with the dowry given
to him. There are allegations that the petitioner is
homosexual and when the complainant came to know
3
about this, he used to quarrel with her and torture her.
Being unable to bear the torture, the complainant left the
marital home and went to her parents house.
4. The investigation papers show that the wife also
gave a statement before the Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C. detailing the ill-treatment meted out to her and
also the attitude of the petitioner. Therefore in the light of
the allegations made against the petitioner, I do not think
that complaint is false one. There are no grounds to grant
anticipatory bail. Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sd
