Sri. Shivakumar and Others vs The State of Karnataka

H. Billappa

The petitioners have filed this petition under Sec. 438 of Cr. P.C. praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

It is stated in the petition, the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they have not committed any offence. The petitioners are ready to abide all the conditions that may be imposed. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed for grant of Anticipatory Bail.

It is alleged, the complainant and the first petitioner fell in love with each other and married on 8.6.2010 in Mullakatamma temple at B. Narayanapura. After the marriage the first petitioner and the complainant lived in a rented house at Siddapura village. On 16/11/2010, the marriage was registered. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, after coming to know about the marriage, abused and assaulted the complainant. The first petitioner and the complainant started living at Nallurahalli village. The complainant became pregnant. The first petitioner without the knowledge of the complainant gave tablet in the milk which resulted in abortion. It is alleged, the petitioners started demanding dowry of Rs. .5/- lakhs. On 8/6/2011. the 1st petitioner left the complainant and his whereabouts were not known. On 22/6/2011, the complainant lodged the missing complaint. Subsequently the complainant came to know that the 1st; petitioner has married again. Thereafter, complaint has been lodged and a case in Crime No. 179/11 of White. Field Police Station, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Secs. 498A. 494, 506 of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are innocent of the offences alleged against them and they have been falsely implicated in the case and the allegations regarding second marriage are vague and therefore, the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail.

As against this, the learned Government pleader submitted that the matter is under investigation and the petitioners are required for investigation and serious allegations have been made and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is;

Whether the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bad?

It is relevant to note, the allegations are that the complainant and the first petitioner fell in love with each other and married on 8.6.2010 in a temple and thereafter, their marriage was registered on 16.11.2010. After the marriage, the 1st petitioner and complainant started living in a rented house. Subsequently, the in-law''s i.e., the petitioners 2 and 3 abused and assaulted the complainant. Thereafter the second marriage has been performed. The allegations regarding second marriage are vague: The marriage between the 1st petitioner and complainant was a love marriage and they lived in a rented house. The petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 are residing separately and they are available for investigation. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions:

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions.

i) In the event of their arrest in Cr. No. 179/11 of White Field Police Station, Bangalore, the petitioners shall be released on bail on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs. .20,000/. each with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.

ii) The petitioners shall appear before the I.O. within five days from today and shall cooperate with the I.O. for investigation as and when required.

iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with the witnesses.

iv) The 1st petitioner shall attend White Field Police Station, Bangalore once in two weeks on a Sunday between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. till final report is submitted.

v) If the petitioners violate any condition; the respondent-State can move for cancellation of the Bail.