IN ORDER TO PREVENT THE IRRETRIEVABLE BREAK DOWN OF THE MARRIAGE AND IN ORDER TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES TO REDRESS THEIR REMEDY BY WAY OF CONCILIATION OR MEDIATION, I AM INCLINED TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS. OTHER APPREHENSIONS RAISED BY THE LEARNED HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER CAN BE METED OUT BY IMPOSING CERTAIN CONDITIONS SAYS: KARNATAKA HC
In the matter of Thejas Kumar Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 November, 2022(CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9289 OF 2022) presided by THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR stated that This crl.P. It is listed under section 438 cr.P.C praying to direct the respondent police, soladevanahalli police station, bengaluru to
Extension of the applicant/the accused on bail in case of detention in criminal offense no. 99/2022 for criminal offenses under §§ 498-a, 313
Read with 34 ipc and section 3 and 4 of the dowry prohibition act, 1961.
FACTS OF THE CASE
A brief factual matrix leading to the case is as follows:
The engagement of petitioner no.1 and complainant was solemnized on 29.07.2020 at Sarangi Hotel, Bagalagunte and later their marriage was solemnized at Sri Padmavathi Marriage Hall. It is also alleged that sufficient cash and gold were given to the appellants as dowry in marriage as per their demand. After the marriage, the appellants allegedly took good care of her for a period of one month. Subsequently, the complainant was subjected to ill-treatment by the petitioners demanding additional dowry and in the meantime she became pregnant. The petitioners were said to be against the complainant’s conception and therefore she was forced to travel on two-wheelers with the petitioner no.1 on 29.9.2021 and the petitioner no.1 was driving the vehicle rashly and carelessly ignoring the bumps in the road. as a result, she suffered bleeding and later was not given proper treatment. However, when she reported the same to her parents, she was admitted to a hospital where she was aborted. Reportedly, her parents bore the entire cost of the hospital. Later, after her release, she stayed with her parents and her husband came there and argued to send the complainant with him. Later came a complaint. The petitioners stayed their arrest and approached the learned Sessions Judge and that Judge rejected their bail application. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court.
JUDGMENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR OBSERVED THAT –
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the relationship between the parties, in my considered opinion the petitioner can be admitted on anticipatory bail otherwise the marriage is likely to be irretrievably broken. In order to avoid irretrievable breakdown of the marriage and to give the parties an opportunity to seek redress through amicable means or mediation, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Other concerns raised by the learned Government Pleader of the Supreme Court can be resolved by imposing certain conditions. Therefore, the application for bail should be allowed and I therefore proceed to adopt the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to be granted bail on their arrest in Crime No. 99/2022 Police Station Soladevanahalli, registered for offenses punishable under Section 498-A and Section 313 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, where each of them has furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety in like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or a competent Court of First Instance for of the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall surrender themselves to the Investigating Officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and in case of surrender, the Investigating Officer/SHO shall release them on bail as directed.
(ii) Proponents shall not directly or indirectly tamper with prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offences.
- iv) Petitioners will do themselves
available to the Investigating Officer for questioning whenever called upon in the course of the investigation.
(v) Petitioner No. 1 shall report his presence before the Investigating Officer/SHO between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. every first Monday of the month until the final report is submitted.
(vi) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHA L NALWAR