Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH
P.N. DESAI, J.
Imran S/o. Abdul Latif Sutar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Karnataka, Through PSI Kalaburagi City Women PS, Kalaburagi, Rep. by Addl. SPP - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 200860 of 2022
Decided On : 27-07-2022
Anticipatory Bail - Offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act - Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the nature and seriousness of the offences, the character of the accused, the circumstances peculiar to the accused, the reasonable probabilities of the accused not being secured at trial, the reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, and the larger interest of the public or the state. The court applied the settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and considered the specific circumstances of the case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in a case involving offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged physical and mental torture, demand for additional dowry, and illicit relationship by the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, including women and aged persons, made out sufficient grounds for anticipatory bail, considering the nature of the offences and the specific circumstances of the case.
Issues: The issues involved the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused in a case involving non-bailable offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception, and considered the specific circumstances of the case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and ordered the petitioners to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in connection with the case, subject to specific conditions.
ORDER :
This petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) seeking to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.28/2022 of Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The above said complaint came to be registered on the basis of complaint lodged by one Sumayya Sultana stating that her marriage was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 11.12.2018 and at the time of marriage Rs.8,00,000/- cash and other household articles were given to the petitioners family. Then, 3-4 months after the marriage, petitioner No.1 started to consume alcohol and abused her in filthy language and assaulted the complainant. Further it is alleged that the petitioners/accused were demanding complainant to bring additional dowry and gold from her parents house otherwise they will not provide food to her. They also threatened the complainant that they perform another marriage to petitioner No.1/accused No.1. It is further alleged that petitioner No.1 has got illicit relationship with another woman. The petitioners tortured her physically and mentally. It is further alleged that on 27.03.2022 when the complainant was in her parental house, all the accused came there and started quarrelling with her and assaulted her and other family members by demanding additional dowry. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged. The learned Sessions Judge rejected bail petition. Hence, this present petition.
3. Heard Sri. Maksood Afzal Jagirdar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, learned HCGP for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are women, petitioner No.5 is the medical student and studying in medical college at Ahmedabad, Gujarat and she is not knowing the alleged incident and petitioner No.1 is also working as BAMS Doctor at Pune. Therefore, just to harass the petitioners, a false complaint came to be filed. Learned Sessions Judge rejected the bail petition only on the ground that petitioners did not appear before the Investigating Officer when notice was issued under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. which is not correct. Learned counsel further argued that petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Against this, learned HCGP argued that the petitioners have assaulted the complainant in her parents house and also assaulted her family members and abused them. Even petitioners have not appeared before the Investigating Officer when notice was issued under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C., if, petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may tamper the prosecution witnesses and they may not appear, as they are permanent resident of Maharashtra State and they may abscond. Therefore, learned HCGP prays for rejection of bail petition.
6. I have perused the material on record, FIR and bail petition. Admittedly none of the offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Except offence under Section 498A of IPC, other offences are bailable. Petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are admittedly women. It is stated that petitioner No.5 is the Medical student; petitioner No.3 is aged about 62 years and petitioner No.6 stated to be the brother of petitioner No.2 who is also aged about 61 years and it is also forthcoming from the FIR that this complainant is residing in her parents house since 4-6 months prior to the alleged date of incident. The main allegation is that petitioner No.1 is having illicit relationship with another woman and consuming alcohol and caused ill-treatment on her.
7. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into
Entitlement to anticipatory bail based on specific allegations of harassment and illegal demands.
The court may grant anticipatory bail where the allegations lack specific particulars of harassment, the accused have no criminal antecedents and are willing to cooperate with the investigation.
The court determines that allegations of dowry demand do not justify custodial interrogation at the stage of anticipatory bail consideration.
Anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 when allegations do not warrant preemptive detention, provided conditions to protect ongoing investigations are set.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the specific allegations and individual circumstances of the petitioners.
Anticipatory bail can be granted in serious allegations, balancing the gravity of charges with the rights of the accused under specific conditions.
Anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. when petitioners have no criminal antecedents and face only general allegations without medical evidence.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when accused face potential false implications, especially in domestic disputes.
Grant of anticipatory bail - matter is being settled between the husband, wife and her in-laws, as such, the present applicants be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
