High CourtsSingle Bench

Mahesha vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 23 October 2010 · Citation: (2010) 10 KAR CK 0113

HON’BLE JUDGES
N. Ananda, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Section 3, 4 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 34, 498A, 506
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 4775 of 2010
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 458 words

N. Ananda, J.—Heard learned Counsel for Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State.

2.

The Petitioner is the husband of first informant Jayalakshmi. Their marriage was performed on 16.12.1996 at Chamundi betta, Mysore. It is alleged that after marriage, first informant was living in the house of Petitioner at. different places and she also gave birth to two female children. The first informant had alleged that Petitioner is a womanizer. He was always harassing and beating her and demanding her dowry and also assassinating her character. Therefore, on 16.8.2010, first informant along with her children left the house of Petitioner and came to the house of her brother at Bangalore and lodged a complaint on 21.8.2010. On the basis of which crime No. 118/2010 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w. Section 34 of IPC so also Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act. First information does not reveal even the venue of marriage and also the persons who performed marriage. The first informant had lived with Petitioner for a period of 14 years, though there was bickering among themselves. They had also approached the Court and sought for divorce. However, matter was compromised. The Petitioner has been working as a Police Constable. The Petitioner cannot neglect the welfare of his children, not-withstanding the differences between himself and first informant.

3.

Therefore, without going into further details, the direction sought for is granted for a limited period to enable Petitioner to seek regular bail before the trial Court.

4.

In the result, I pass the following order:

Petition is accepted. Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, subject to following conditions:

1) If Petitioner is arrested in Crime No. 118/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by Chamarajanagara Town police, he shall be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-offering a surety for the likesum.

2) Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with JMFC Court at Chamarajanagara. The learned Judge of the said Court shall issue notice to first informant and pay the same to first informant for being spent for the welfare of her daughters.

3) Petitioner shall not intimidate or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

4) Petitioner, for the purpose of investigation, shall appear before the Investigating Officer, whenever called upon to do so.

5) This order would be operative for a period of three months from today within such time, Petitioner shall seek regular bail before the jurisdictional Court. In such an event, the learned Judge of the jurisdictional Court shall consider bail application without being influenced by observations made in this order.