1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4823/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. GAUTAM RATHEE,
S/O SHREE BHAGWAN RATHEE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT # 964, SECTOR 10,
PANCHKULA, PANCHKULA SECTOR 8,
HARYANA-124 109
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. R.KRISHNAMURTHY, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HAL POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY,
REP. BY SPP., HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. P. YOGANNA, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR.NO.152/2019 OF H.A.L. POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 116, 354A, 498A R/W
34 OF SectionIPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
– State. Perused the records.
2. Brief allegations made against the petitioner is that
petitioner and the complainant by name Shika Choudhary
married each other on 05.03.2016. After four days of
marriage, it appears some dispute started between the
husband and wife. It is alleged that accused persons have
started demanding dowry after the marriage and
thereafter, they persistently demanding for a flat, car, etc.,
at the instance of the complainant. As the complainant
refused for the same, petitioner alleged to have demanded
more money and it is also alleged that the brother of the
accused by name Satyajit Jena has also illtreated and
harassed her sexually and incited her to sleep with him,
etc., It is further alleged that accused is addicted to
alcohol and he used to drink and come home late in the
night and the friends of the accused also started
3
misbehaving with the complainant and in spite of the
same, petitioner has not taken any action against his
friends and in turn, he supported the said act of his
friends, etc., On these allegations, a complaint came to be
lodged and police have registered a case against the
petitioner and others and investigated the matter. It
appears that all the accused persons have been released
on anticipatory bail by Sessions Court itself. It appears
that both the petitioner and the victim are well educated
and software engineers. Further added to that, the
allegations made against other accused person particularly
Satyajit Jena is more severe than the allegation made
against the petitioner.
3. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances of
the case, there is no recovery as such at the instance of
the petitioner requires to be made and the investigation
can be done even without taking the accused into the
custody of the police. As it is a matrimonial differences
between husband and wife, if the accused is sent behind
the bars, there may be bleak chances of compromise
4
between the parties. Therefore, Court should always be
slow in sending the accused behind bars, particularly
when the matrimonial dispute is persisting between the
parties and no physical damage has been done to anybody.
Therefore, to enable the parties to sit together and find out
remedy for their life in future, I find it just and necessary
to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner
shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in
connection with Crime No.152/2019 on the file of XLIII
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall,
Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 116, Section354A, Section498A read with 34 SectionIPC and Section 3
and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following
conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the
Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall
execute personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only) with one surety for the
like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned
Investigating Officer.
5
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the
investigation or tampering the prosecution
witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the investigation,
and he shall appear before the Investigating
Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Investigating Officer without prior permission,
till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three
months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in
fifteen days i.e., on any Sunday between 10.00 am
and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for
a period of two months or till the charge sheet is
filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PKS