IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8591/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Pushpa, W/o. Late Vijayakumar, Aged about 70 years R/at No.504, S.L.V. Apartment, K.R.S. Road, Mysuru – 570 002.
2. Sri. Rakesh, S/o. Late Vijayakumar, Aged about 36 years, R/at No.504, S.L.V. Apartment, K.R.S. Road, Mysuru – 570 002.
(By Sri.B.A. Belliappa, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Subramanyapura Police Station, Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, ...Petitioners Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.330/2018 of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 448, 365 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release them on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.330/2018 of Subramanyapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 504, 448, 365, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the complaint is that the complainant Smt. G.S. Sahana is the wife of accused No.1 and she had married one Sri. A. Srinivas prior to the marriage with accused No.1 herein, which ended in a separation allegedly the first husband being impotent and thereafter, the complainant is married to accused No.1 on 04.09.2014. Accused No.1 is the son of the petitioner No.1. At the time of marriage, some gold and cash was given in the form of dowry. Thereafter, the dispute arose between the husband and wife. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was impotent and did not perform the matrimonial obligations due to the said disability and subsequently with the aid and assistance of the mother-in-law and others she had to undergo the process of IVF (in vitro fertilization) treatment to beget child and thereafter had a female child. It is further alleged that the petitioners and accused No.1 have harassed and assaulted the complainant both physically and mentally and on 26.09.2018, when she was in her parents house, the accused persons came and abused her with filthy language and forcefully kidnapped her, her daughter and even they took her mother and put her into the car but her mother by pushing the door came out of the said car. It is further alleged that accused No.4 confined her, however she escaped and went to the police station and filed the complaint.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the alleged incident has taken place on 26.09.2018 but the complaint has been registered on 20.10.2018, there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. It is further submitted that already accused No.1 has been released on bail. Under the similar facts and circumstance, on the ground of parity, petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the contents of the complaint indicates that it is only an attempt and no such incident has taken place and a false complaint has been registered against the accused petitioners. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the complainant and their family members have given the dowry in the form of gold and cash and even an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- has been transferred by the complainant to the account of accused No.1. Further it is submitted that the accused persons including the present petitioners have tortured the complainant both physically and mentally and even they have tried to kill and kidnap her, her mother and her daughter. There is ample material to show that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have involved in the said crime. If they are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and they may threaten the complainant also. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, it indicates that the alleged incident has taken place on 26.09.2018 but the complaint has been registered on 20.10.2018. There is delay in filing the complaint. As could be seen from the complaint, the entire complaint does not discloses whether it is only an attempt to kidnap the mother of the complainant, complainant and her daughter? is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated only at the time of trial. The alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Already accused No.1 is released on bail and serious allegations are made in respect of accused No.1. On the ground of parity, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled to be released on bail.
8. In the light of discussions held by me above, petition is allowed and the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.330/2018 of Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 448, 365 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 subject to the following conditions:
1. Each of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. They shall surrender before the Investigation Agency within 15 days from today.
3. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence either directly or indirectly.
4. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
5. Petitioner No.2 shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., before the jurisdictional police station and petitioner No.1 shall mark her attendance, once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., nearby police station in Mysuru where she is residing, till the charge sheet is filed.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS