IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Syed Khaleed and Others – Appellants
Vs.
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 5587 of 2022
Decided On : 01-07-2022
Bail - Dowry Harassment - The court allowed the petition for bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with a case involving offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A and 313 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court imposed certain conditions to protect the interest of the prosecution.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged dowry harassment, assault, and forced termination of pregnancy by her husband and in-laws. The petitioners sought bail, claiming the case was false and there was a delay in lodging the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the delay in lodging the complaint, the nature of the allegations, and the fact that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. It found it to be a fit case for bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., subject to imposing certain conditions to protect the interest of the prosecution.
Issues: Delay in lodging the complaint, nature of the allegations, and the severity of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court granted bail considering the delay in lodging the complaint, the nature of the allegations, and the fact that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Final Decision: The petitioners were allowed bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with the case, subject to certain conditions to protect the interest of the prosecution.
ORDER :
1. This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No. 85/2022 registered by K.R. Pet Rural Police Station, Mandya, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A and 313 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with her husband i.e., accused No. 1 on 25.11.2021 at Holenarasipura Town and thereafter, she has joined the matrimonial home. It is an allegation that, all the family members demanded Rs. 2 lakhs stating that they have not given the cash of Rs. 2 lakhs and they cannot simply provide food and told her to leave the house and the husband of the complainant also burnt her with cigarette on her right leg. It is also her claim that she was also pregnant and her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law administered tablet for termination of pregnancy and her husband also assaulted with pillow, harassed her and made an attempt to commit murder. When the parents and relatives came to the house on 17.03.2022, all of them have assaulted her parents and relatives and insisted to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2 lakhs and she was also subjected to assault and hence, she took the treatment in Holenarasipura Hospital. Hence, complaint is given and the police have registered the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that a false case has been registered against the petitioners herein and all the family members are roped in the case and though an allegation is made that accused No. 1 caused burn injury with cigarette, no material is placed before the Court and according to the complainant, the incident has taken place on 18.03.2022 and the complaint was given on 18.04.2022 and there is a delay of one month in lodging the complaint. Hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that, though the alleged incident has taken place on 18.03.2022, immediately, she went to the hospital, wherein they have collected Rs. 200/-towards MLC charges and no documents to the effect that she has sustained burn injuries, except the photograph shown to the Court.
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, taking note of the fact that the marriage was solemnized on 25.11.2021 and within a span of 6 months, allegation is made subjecting her for dowry harassment demanding Rs. 2 lakhs and Section 313 of IPC is also invoked with regard to forcible administration of tablet for termination of pregnancy by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law. Having taken note of the fact that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and apart from that, considering the allegation made in the complaint and also the fact that marriage has taken place in the month of November, 2021 and within a span of 6 months, alleged allegation is made and the offences are also not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioners, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER:
(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves before the Investigating O
The court considered the severity of the offences, the delay in lodging the complaint, and the nature of the allegations in granting bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the timing of the complaint, the nature of the allegations, and the need for further investigation are crucial factors in determining the gran....
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the gravity of the offence, the nature of injuries, and the pending dispute, highlighting the importance of considering these factors in bail deci....
The court's decision was influenced by the gravity of the offence and the fact that the offences were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
Bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and the specific circumstances of the case must be considered when granting or rejecting bail in non-bailable offences.
The court considered the specific allegation and medical opinion in determining the appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioner.
The court allows bail to the petitioner under specified conditions, emphasizing that prior criminal history and misrepresentation of petition claims may lead to bail cancellation.
The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedure and guidelines in cases involving allegations of harassment for dowry and directed the police to do so.
The court applied the principle laid down in arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar case, emphasizing the need to follow the procedure under Section 41-a of Cr.P.C for offences punishable with less than seve....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.