Sri Murthy vs State of Karnataka

C.R. Kumaraswamy, J.—This Criminal Petition is filed u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 271/2010 of Alur Police Station, Hassan, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 494, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader.

I have perused the FIR. The contents of the FIR discloses that the Police Sub Inspector, Alur Police Station, has registered a case in Crime No. 271/2010 against accused No. 1-Leelavathi, accused No. 2-Murthy, accused No. 3-Ramanayaka for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 494, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the complaint of one Rathna, daughter of Shekarnayak, It is alleged that accused No. 2-Murthy had married Leelavathi and concealing this fact, he had married the complainant Rathna on 4.7.2010 and therefore, the complainant has presented a complaint before Alur Police Station.

The main allegation made against the Petitioner is that he married the complainant during the lifetime of his wife. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Section 494 of Indian Penal Code can be invoked only by the wife of the Petitioner, that is Leelavathi, by filing a private complaint. There is a force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, The offence alleged against the Petitioner is under Sections 420, 494, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. These offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Petitioner is an agriculturist and permanent resident of Bylakuppe, Periyapatna Taluk. Therefore, the question of abscondence of the Petitioner is quite unlikely, Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, this is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail at this stage.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is allowed conditionally. The Petitioner is granted with anticipatory bail. The Respondent-Police are directed to release the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 271/2010 of Alur Police Station on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Respondent-Police on the following conditions.

i) The Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses nor hamper the investigation in any manner.

ii) He shall make himself available for the Respondent-Police as and when required by them for the purpose of investigation.

iii He shall not jump bail.

iv If any of the conditions is violated, the anticipatory bail entails cancellation,

v) Intimate the concerned accordingly.