The High Court of Karnataka, while granting bail ruled that,the allegations against the petitioner are not sufficient to resist bail






The petitioner is before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.0020/2024 of Women Police Station, Tumakuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 417, 109, 506, r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. the complainant is the wife of petitioner and their marriage was solemnized about two and a half years ago. Petitioner is a Dentist by profession and he is working in Malaysia. After marriage, petitioner went to Malaysia by assuring the complainant that he would take her to Malaysia after one year, however, he did not return to India. Further, while going to Malaysia, he had taken an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ from the complainant’s father. Thereafter, the petitioner has neither called the complainant nor taken her to Malaysia. The in-laws and other family members of the petitioner were not taking care of the complainant and the complainant was not getting satisfactory answers when she asked about the whereabouts of the petitioner. Having suspected the act of the petitioner, complainant had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and her in-laws and the same is registered in FIR No.0020/2024 by the Women Police Station, Tumakuru.


Whether the bail application of the petitioner may be considered and may be enlarged on bail?


Sections 498A of indian penal code, Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 342 of the Indian penal code, talks about punishment for wrongful confinement

Section 417 of Indian penal code, talks about cheating.

Section 109 of Indian penal code, talks about abetment

Section 506 of indian penal code, talks about criminal intimidation

 Section 34 of Indian Penal Code talks about acts done by several person in furtherance of common intension

Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, talks about penalty for demanding dowry


 The petitioner through their counsel submitted that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter and allegation against the petitioner was baseless.the counsel further submitted that Petitioner was coming to India frequently and was staying with the complainant. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, he could not take her to Malaysia where he is working. In the meanwhile, a false complaint has been registered against the petitioner family members. counsel further submitted that if bail is granted, the matter is likely to be settled between the parties. Petitioner would certainly go to India and have some negotiations with the complainant. the counsel also submitted that the offences alleged are neither punishable with death nor imprisonment for life. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and he is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence,the counsel prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.


The respondent through their counsel submitted that the averments of the complaint clearly disclose demand and acceptance of dowry and also cruelty and harassment by the family members of the petitioner. The counsel further submitted that the averments further disclose that complainant has been cheated by the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that the averments made in the complaint attracts Section 498A and other provisions of IPC including Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The counsel further submitted that petitioner is staying in Malaysia and there may be a chance of absconding or tampering the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the counsel prays for dismissal of the petition.


The court on Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the complaint averments, the court observed that it is not in dispute that the petitioner was working in Malaysia as a Dental Doctor and he used to come to India frequently and staying with the complainant. The court opined that the allegations against the petitioner are not sufficient to resist bail further If suitable conditions are imposed, certainly, it would safeguard the apprehension of the prosecution. The court On a careful perusal of the offences mentioned in the FIR, it appears that, the offences are neither punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence,The court opined that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the respondent counsel that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, The court allowed the petition, Further the court ordered The petitioner to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.0020/2024 of Women Police Station, Tumakuru. The court further directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer within one month from the date of receipt of this order and on his appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge him on bail subject to the conditions, that The petitioner shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer,further the court directwed the  petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for the investigation. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.The court further directed that in case the petitioner violates any of the bail conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to seek for cancellation of bail.

“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: Sowmya.R

click here to view judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *