This petition is filed by the petitioner – accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.176/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the K.R.Puram Police Station on the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner – Smt.Roopa.M alleging illtreatment and demand of dowry by the petitioner and his parents.

2. In the complaint, the complainant specifically contended that herself and the petitioner got married on 04.02.2010 at Mangala Kalyana Mantapa, Koramangala, Bangalore. At the time of marriage, a cash of Rs.50,000/, gold ornaments and clothes were given to the petitioner.

Inspite of the same, petitioner and his parents were demanding dowry and ill-treating her. Hence, the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused persons.

3. Initially, the petitioner and his parents obtained anticipatory bail in Crl.P.No.25237/2014. After registration of the case, the petitioner and his parents once again filed a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.Nos.25424/2014 and 25463/2014. The said petitions were allowed by the FTCIII, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore and granted bail to accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., father and mother of the petitioner. However, rejected the bail insofar as the petitioner is concerned, on the ground that he is husband of the complainant and that he has harassed his wife and hence, he is not entitled for bail. In view of that, petitioner has filed the present petitioner seeking for bail.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the marriage of the petitioner, the wife demanded to set up a separate house for their stay and she was not willing to stay with her inlaws. Since the petitioner being the only son to his parents, he refused to set up a separate house. In view of that, the wife has filed a complaint alleging demand of dowry. Infact, the petitioner and his parents had not demanded dowry at any point of time. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner and the complainant were loving each other and with the consent of both the sides, they got married. It is further contended that to set up a separate house, the complainant used to pick up quarrel with the petitioner for trivial issues and the same was ended with the petition under Section 498A of IPC. The petitioner is a permanent resident of K.R.Puram, Bangalore. He is working in a private company and at no point of time, he has ill-treated the complainant. Hence, the counsel for the petitioner seeks for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has opposed for grant of anticipatory bail, contending that the wife made a complaint against the petitioner and her inlaws under Section 498A of IPC with regard to illtreatment and demand of dowry. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for any bail and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the FTCIII, Bangalore and also relevant records.

7. The records clearly disclose that the marriage of the petitioner with the complainant was solemnized on 04022010. They led a happy marital life. However, the complainant was not willing to stay with her inlaws. Hence, she demanded to set up a separate house. However, the petitioner refused to do so, on the ground that he is the only son to look after his age old parents and he cannot leave his parents during their old age. In view of that, difference of opinion arose between the husband and wife and ended in filing of the complaint for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Whether the petitioner had demanded the dowry and illtreated the complainant, is a matter to be decided at the time of trial. The complaint has been made against the petitioner and