1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1863 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI SHEIK IMRAN
S/O LATE S.ILIYAS,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT RTC COLONY,
HINDUPUR TOWN AND TALUK,
ANDRA PRADESH – 575 201. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.P.BABAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
BAGEPALLI POLICE,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT,
BY STATE P.P. – 560 001
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA. … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P 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.273/2017 OF
BAGEPALLI POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT
2
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323,
498A, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT ETC.,
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The
petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The
respondent police registered a case against the petitioner
in Crime No.273/2017 and other accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC
and Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The wife alleged that after her marriage with
the petitioner she was being continuously harassed and
tortured by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner
at the time of marriage stated that he was working in a
Company and getting a monthly salary of Rs.80,000/-. But
it was false. Actually he was a gambler and spendthrift.
For gambling purpose he used to put pressure on the wife
3
to bring money from her parents house. About 1 ½ months
ago, the petitioner shifted his family to Chikkaballapur.
There also he used to quarrel and on one day he assaulted
her and put life threat on her. Another allegation is that
the petitioner’s brother Sheik Rizwan, the petitioner’s
grand-father M.K.Bazajan and his sons namely,
Rahamathulla and Habib Ulla were supporting the
petitioner to ill-treat the complainant.
3. Heard petitioner’s counsel and the learned
High Court Government Pleader.
4. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the
petition for anticipatory bail. If the complaint is read, it
becomes very clear that soon after the marriage, the
complainant has been the victim of harassment by the
petitioner. I do not find any chance of false implication as
no wife goes to the extent of imputing her own husband
unless there are compelling circumstances. The
investigation is not yet complete. Moreover, the Hon’ble
4
Supreme Court has clearly laid down in the case of
ARNESH KUMAR vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER
reported in (2014)8 SCC 273 that whenever the police
register a complaint with relation to offence under Section
498-A and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the accused
shall not be arrested unnecessarily and the Magistrate
shall not authorize detention casually and mechanically.
This being the law in relation to the offences alleged
against the petitioner, the apprehension expressed by him
of being arrested, does not appear to be well founded. In
the result anticipatory bail cannot be granted. Hence, the
petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsk/-
