SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Ravi Kumar @ Ravindra Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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