IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6420 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
ANIL KUMAR P.S. S/O LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT. No.63, 1 BLOCK RAMANNA BLOCK NANDINI LAYOUT BANGALORE-560096.
(BY SRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADV.) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE-01.
(BY SRI. ROHITH B.J. HCGP) - - -
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENT 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 CR.No.110/2019 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence P/U/S 498-A, 354 R/W Sec.34 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State and perused the records.
2. On a detailed complaint lodged by complainant by name Preethi, wife of accused, police have registered a case in Crime No.110/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354 read with 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. There is no dispute that the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was performed on 31.03.2019 and thereafter, the complainant started living with the petitioner and other members of his family. It is alleged that the accused – petitioner has been ill-treating and harassing her sexually by various methods and also he used to assault her and ill-treat her for various other reasons. But, there is no allegations with regard to demand of any dowry or demand of any other things. What exactly is the reason for his ill- treatment and harassment is not clearly forthcoming from the complaint. The reason for that has to be established during the course of investigation. The other petitioners who are no other than the mother and sister of the petitioner, have already been released on bail by the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.6767/2019. It is too short a time to understand themselves because the marriage took place on 31.03.2019 and complaint came to be filed on 23.07.2019 within a span of about four months. Therefore, what exactly is the reason for the differences between the husband and wife has to be taken into consideration and thrashed out during the course of investigation and trial. Particularly, in matrimonial matters, the Court should be slow in sending accused persons to jail so as to completely shut down reasonable probabilities of compromise between the parties. However, the petitioner is sent to jail. The exploration of possibility of settlement may be curtailed. Therefore, even though the allegations are very seriously made with regard to ill- treatment but it was not with regard to any demand of dowry. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances, it is a fit case where parties can explore the possibility of settlement between themselves. The offence under Section 354 is bailable in nature. However, the offence under Section 498A is non-bailable but it is not seriously punishable in nature. Therefore, under the above said facts and circumstances, in my opinion, if the petitioner is granted bail with stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice. 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.110/2019 of Basavanagudi Women Police Station, 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 Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
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 a week i.e., on every 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 RV