Karnataka High Court
Mr G S Pragath Purushottama vs State Of Karnataka on 17 June, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2769/2022
BETWEEN:
MR. G.S.PRAGATH PURUSHOTTAMA
S/O G.R. SUBRAMANIAM
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO.49/18, SHIVAGIRI
3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS
MOUNT JOY EXTENSION
HANUMANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560019. ... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR,ADVOCATE )
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGLAURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.69/2022 OF
BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 498-A, 354-A, 504, 506 R/W. 149 OF IPC AND
2
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND SECTION 67 OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2008.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail, in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.69/2022 registered by Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 354(A), 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 this petitioner was solemnized with the complainant in 2015 and they were not having any issues. It is the allegation that the husband and his family members started 3 harassing her both mentally and physically and started demanding dowry. The petitioner is also addicted to bad vices and he was harassing to take nude photo of the complainant and also took the same causing fear to her and also threatened her parents. That on 04.12.2021, the husband of the complainant took her near the Starbucks, Koramangala and made her to talk with his friend with an intention to make an allegation against the complainant and started harassing stating that her nude photograph and other photographs will be uploaded in the social media and the same was reported to her parents. That on 11.02.2022, the panchayathdars said that it is not the right time to discuss the same. That on 16.02.2022, her husband and father-in-law made phone call to her father and told him that, let the complainant be there in the parental house itself or otherwise, they should give 50% of the property and if they do not give the same, they will commit murder of his daughter. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for the offence under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 and 354(A) read with Section 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition 4 Act, 1961 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were no issues, even though marriage had taken place in 2015 and M.C. petition is also filed on 20.01.2022 and present complaint is filed subsequent to filing of M.C. Petition. The counsel also would submit that the amount has been transferred to the account of her father, after the payment of Rs.20 lakhs each by the petitioner and now, she has twisted the facts of the case making false allegation against the petitioner herein.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that, in the complaint, specific allegations are made that the petitioner is having problem with his fertility and he took the complainant to a lonely place and introduced her to his friend and by taking the nude photograph, he also started blackmailing her. Hence, there is a specific allegation of harassment in the complaint and he is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5
6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the marriage between the petitioner and the complainant is solemnized in 2015 and present complaint is filed in 2022. Apart from that, M.C. Petition was filed prior to filing of this complaint and the allegations made in the complaint has to be probed and to probe the allegations, the presence of the petitioner is not required, taking note of the nature of offence as well as the allegations. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner with a direction to co-operate with the Investigating Officer for investigation in the matter, subject to imposing certain conditions to protect and safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner- accused No.1 shall be released on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.69/2022 registered by Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 354(A), 504 and 506 6 read with Section 149 of IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 67 of Information Technology Act, 2008, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the
investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.
(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30th of every month 7 between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST