IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3201/2017 Between:
Sri. Ravikiran Udupa S/o Vasudeva Udupa Aged about 29 years Working as Branch Manager Corporation Bank Sringeri Branch, Sringeri Chikmagalur Dist-577139.
(By Mr. M.C. Jayakirthi, Advocate) And:
State by Sringeri Police Station Chikmagalur District Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560001.
(By Mr. S. Vishwamurthy, HCGP) **** ...Petitioner ... Respondent 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.37/2017 of Sringeri Police Station, Chikkamagaluru District for the offence punishable under Sections 376(J) and 498-A of Cr.P.C. r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Crl.P. coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER The Respondent Police registered an FIR against the petitioner (Accused No.1), his mother, (Accused No.2) and sister-in-law (Accused No.3) in Crime No.37/2017, for the offences punishable under Sections 376(J) and 498-A of Cr.P.C. r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The complainant, Smt. Pratima is none other than the wife of the petitioner having married him on 10-07-2016. The allegation is, even prior to the marriage, the accused placed demand for dowry in terms of gold ornaments and after the marriage also, they insisted to transfer the immovable properties standing in the name of the father of the complainant in favour of the petitioner. During the honeymoon period, he had consumed psychotropic drugs and had sexual intercourse with the complainant against her will. While they were residing together, he did not maintain her. That made the complainant to shift to a hostel and search for a job, etc. Since the complainant intended to discus the matter with the elders, delayedly complaint was lodged.
3. Perused the 164 statement of the victim girl.
4. Without expressing any opinion about the merits and demerits of the case of the main accused at this stage, since it is at the initial stage of the married life, in the event of arrest of the petitioner that may further deteriorate the possibility of any sort of settlement between the parties. On that score itself, the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, in Crime No.37/2017, registered by the Sringeri Police Station on the following conditions:
1] That the petitioner shall forthwith appear before the Respondent – Investigating Officer and in that event, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to interrogate him.
2] In the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police in respect of the above case, he shall be released on bail on executing a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), with one surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the Police Officer.
3] The Investigating Officer is also directed to procure the complainant and make all possible efforts to bring out a settlement between the couple through local Mediation Centre functioning at District Court premises;
4] The petitioner shall not threaten or prevail upon the complainant and co-operate with the Investigating Officer during the further course of investigation.
Sri. Rajesh Rai. K, Advocate has filed impleading application, I.A.1/2017 for the complainant. But for adjudication of bail petition, no external assistance is required for the prosecution. Hence the said I.A.1/2017 is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*