Judgment :- Apprehending his arrest by Chikkanayakanahalli Police in connection with case in Crime No.190/12 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of Indian Penal Code and U/S 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, petitioner has presented this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking relief of Anticipatory Bail. 2. The petitioner is the husband of complainant Smt. Savitha. Their marriage was solemnized on 09.02.2011. The said Smt. Savitha said to have lodged a report at about 7.30 p.m. on 3.12.12 alleging that after the marriage for about two months she was looked after well by her husband and thereafter her husband started demanding her to get money and by force he obtained a sum of Rs.10,000/-from her and thereafter, he started insisting her to part with her jewelry for the purpose of purchasing an auto rickshaw and when she refused to do so, he subjected her to mental and physical cruelty and in this behalf panchayath was also held and the Panchayathdar for the time being asked her to remain in her parental home and while she was in her parental home a note duly signed by her stating that she herself was responsible for her death was taken by her husband. On the basis of the said report, respondent-police registered case and took up investigation. On coming to know of registration of the case, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking relief of Anticipatory Bail. However, the said petition came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Therefore, he is before this Court. 3. The petition is opposed by respondent-State. 4. I have heard both the sides and perused the records made available. 5. As noticed supra the petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.1 in the aforesaid case registered by the respondent-police for non bailable offences. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he is likely to be arrested is well founded. 6. A reading of the complaint prima facie indicates that at the time of marriage there was no demand or acceptance of the dowry nor the alleged further demand was as part of dowry. The alleged demand was stated to be for purchasing an auto rickshaw for their livelihood. 7. 6. A reading of the complaint prima facie indicates that at the time of marriage there was no demand or acceptance of the dowry nor the alleged further demand was as part of dowry. The alleged demand was stated to be for purchasing an auto rickshaw for their livelihood. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and materials available on record at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of any offences alleged. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of Anticipatory Bail. 8. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The respondent -Police are hereby directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in Crime No.190/12 of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer and subject to further conditions that, (i) Upon such arrest and release, the petitioner for the purpose of investigation shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon to do so and co-operate in the investigation of the case. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner. (iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case.