1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.542 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
UMER SHARIF,
S/O. B. M. YUSUF SHARIF,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/O. 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
KALIDASA NAGAR,
HARIHARA,
HARIHARA TALUK – 573 130.
… PETITIONER
(By SRI. R. PRAMOD, ADV., AND
SRI. H. T. JAGADEESH, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
TOWN POLICE STATION,
HARIHARA,
HARIHARA TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 573 131,
REP BY,
S. P. P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT BENGALURU – 560 001.
… RESPONDENT
(By SRI. B. J. ESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C, PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS
ARREST IN CR. NO.163/2016 OF HASSAN TOWN P.S.,
DAVANAGERE, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 498A, 307, 504, 506, 114 R/W 149
OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State.
The respondent-police registered FIR against the
petitioner (accused No.1) and his family members
(accused Nos.2 to 5) in their Crime No.163/2016 in
respect of the offences punishable under Sections 323,
498-A, 307, 504, 506, 114 r/w Section 149 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, on the
complaint of his wife.
3
2. The allegation is, the accused persons
(husband and in-laws) used to harass the complainant
unnecessarily. On 24.03.2016, at the instigation of his
family members, accused No.1 assaulted the
complainant. The accused persons insisted her to get
loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents,
otherwise to sell away her children. On the night of
16.09.2016, accused No.1 poured kerosene on her back
and set fire on her. Immediately, she left the
matrimonial home with her children.
3. Perused the wound certificate. During the
incident, the victim has suffered simple burn injuries on
the lateral aspect of chest and upper abdomen.
Incident had occurred on 16.09.2016 and the complaint
was lodged on 09.11.2016. Since it is a matrimonial
dispute, it is in the interest of justice that the parties
4
shall be accommodated to sort out differences between
themselves.
4. Hence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner
is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.163/2016
registered by the respondent-Police, subject to following
conditions:
(i) In the event of his arrest by the respondent-
Investigating Officer in respect of the above
case, he shall be released on bail on
executing a self bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum.
(ii) He shall appear before the respondent-
Investigating Officer as and when called
upon for further investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
