1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF MARCH, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1474/2018

BETWEEN:

Sri.M.R.Vijaykumar, S/o M.Renukaiah
Aged about 30 years,
Occupation: Senior Manager,
First Gate, Global Solutions
(Cab Gemini), E.P.I.P. II Phase,
Whitefield, Bengaluru,
Resident of Sri Venkateswara
Nilaya, Behind Noorani
Chicken Centre, Beside
S.S.I.T. College Compound,
Kunigal Road, Tumkur-572 101. … Petitioner

(By Sri Rajkumar C, Advocate)

AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Chitradurga Town Circle
Women Police, Chitradurga,
PIN-577 501.
Represented by State Public
Prosecutor, High Court
Building, Bengaluru.
PIN: 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2

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.103/2017 of Women Police
Station, Chitradurga, for the offence punishable under
Sections 504, 323, 498A R/w Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act.

This criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:

ORDER

1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. The complaint was made by the petitioner’s wife

on 26.12.2017 alleging harassment made by her husband

i.e., the petitioner and in-laws. The marriage took place on

04.05.2017 at Chitradurga. It is alleged that at the time of

marriage, there was demand for dowry and even after

marriage, the petitioner and his parents put forth demand

for dowry and in this connection, the complainant used to

be harassed. The complaint also discloses that on

20.12.2017 the complainant made an attempt to commit

suicide but it was averted.

2. The petitioner’s counsel argues that other

accused have been released on anticipatory bail. False
3

allegations are made against the petitioner. The

complainant initiated proceedings U/Sec.12 of Prevention

of Women from Domestic Violence Act and in that

complaint, it is clearly stated that she was living in her

parent’s house and never went to reside with the

petitioner. Therefore, because of contradictions found in

the complaint dated 26.12.2017 and in the petition filed

under D.V. Act, it can be stated that an attempt is made to

falsely implicate the petitioner. Hence, it is a fit case for

anticipatory bail.

3. The learned High Court Government Pleader

opposed the grant of bail on the ground that investigation

is still under progress.

4. It may be true that there may be some

contradictions in the compliant dated 26.12.2017 and the

petition filed under the Prevention of Women from

Domestic Violence Act. However, having regard to the fact

that wife was living away from the petitioner after the
4

marriage, it cannot be said that there are no differences

between husband and wife. Unnecessarily no wife goes to

the extent of making allegations against the husband.

Facts and circumstances are such that discretion

U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., cannot be exercised. Therefore, the

petition is dismissed. Hence, the following:

ORDER

Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KCM.

NMS