Allowed

Mr.Chethan D.M. v. Basavangudi Womens Police Station

Karnataka HC18 Mar 2021CRL.P/992/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed an anticipatory bail petition filed by five accused in a matrimonial dispute. The offenses involved Sections 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court granted bail subject to specific conditions including execution of a personal bond and surrender within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of a personal bond, surrender within 15 days, no tampering with witnesses, deemed custody for Section 27 IE Act, and appearance during invest

Mr.Chethan D.M. Vs Basavangudi Womens Police Station — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.992 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MR. CHETHAN D.M. S/O. DAYANANDA MOHITE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 6 CORNER HOUSE, 3^RD FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN, JNANAGANGA NAGAR, JNANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE – 560 056.

¶9

MR. DAYANAND MURTHY S/O. M.N. MONNJIRAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶10

MRS. NAGAMANI BAI W/O. DAYANAND MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.278, 5^TH MAIN NGEF LAYOUT, NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE – 560 072.

¶12

MRS. NANDINI W/O. K. MADHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶13

MR. K. MADHAN RAO S/O. KRISHNOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

BOTH NOS.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDING AT NO.127, SRINIVASA KRUPA, BHEL LAYOUT MAIN ROAD, KENCHENAHALLI, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 098.

¶16

... PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SMT. D.K. SANDARSHINI, ADVOCATE) FOR SRI JAGADEESH B. MADIWALAR, ADV.)

¶18

AND

¶19

BASAVANGUDI WOMENS POLICE STATION BANASHANKARI, BANGALORE.

¶20

JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION BANGALORE.

¶21

CHITRADURGA WOMENS POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA.

¶22

RESPONDENTS NOS.1 TO 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.76 OF 2020 OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 AND 34 OF THE IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961.

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

ORDER

¶29

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory

¶30

bail in Crime No.76/2020 registered by Chitradurga Womens Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short D.P.Act).

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that

¶32

Smt. Lakshmi Jadhav D, the wife of accused No.1 filed a complaint on 10.12.2020 in Chitradurga Womens Police Station alleging that she was given in marriage with accused No.1. Their marriage was solemnised on 10.04.2018 at Chitradurga town. At the time of marriage, her parents had given 30 grams of Gold, ½ kg silver articles, Rs.35,000/- towards purchase of cloth and a watch worth of Rs.14,000/- as dowry. Thereafter, the complainant stayed happily in her matrimonial house for

¶33

¶34

three months. As the complainant has completed her Post Graduate, teacher training and Diploma, she intended to work in Oxford School as a teacher which is nearby to her house after prior permission with her husband and in-laws. But, later the accused persons were insisting her to leave the job and were also said to have harassed the complainant physically and mentally. They were continuously harassing her for the said reason. Therefore, she complained the matter to the Basavanagudi Womens Police Station. They settled the matter and advised the accused to live happy marital life and advised to live separately in their out house. Thereafter, she lived in the out house for one week along with accused No.1. Inspite of it, on 26.11.2020, the accused persons tried to assault her. At that time, she escaped from the accused persons and went to her parents’ house which is in Chitradurga and got admitted in the hospital till 2.12.2020 and later she filed a complaint before respondent No.3. After registering a case, the Police are making hectic efforts to arrest these petitioners.

¶35

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners has

¶37

seriously argued that the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Even though the offence committed at Bengaluru, the complainant had filed a false complaint at Chitradurga with an intention to harass the petitioners. Though the offence is non-bailable, the same is not punishable either with death or imprisonment of life. They are ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for granting bail.

¶38

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and prayed for rejecting the bail petition.

¶39

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the petitioners are the husband and in-laws of the complainant. There is a matrimonial dispute between the parties. Though the alleged offences are non-bailable, but they are not punishable either with death or

¶40

¶41

imprisonment of life and they are triable by the Magistrate. Therefore, without expression any opinion regarding the merits of the case, by imposing certain conditions, if bail is granted, no prejudice would cause to the prosecution case. Hence, the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Criminal petition is allowed .

¶44

The respondent – Police are directed to release the petitioners/accused No.1 to 5 on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, subject to the following conditions:

¶45

(i) Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶46

(ii) Petitioners shall surrender within 15 days before the Investigating Officer from the

¶47

¶48

date of receipt of the certified copy of the order;

¶49

(iii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/ indirectly;

¶50

(iv) Petitioners shall be deemed custody for the purpose of any recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; and

¶51

(v) Petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the purpose of investigation.

¶52

SD/JUDGE

¶53

GBB

Mr.Chethan D.M. v. Basavangudi Womens Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Chethan D.M. v. Basavangudi Womens Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashraf Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Inderkumar. M Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Arif Vs State by D. J. Halli

Lakshmikanth Vs State of Karnataka

Shin Thangajal Vs the State of Karnataka

K Shivanna Vs State by Karnataka