JUDGMENT Pradeep Singh Yerur, J. - The petitioner herein is the accused no. 1 in Crime No. 14/2020 registered by Kolala police, Tumkur for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. The petitioner herein has filed this petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail. 3. The facts of the case are as under: The petitioner states that he had married one Smt. Aruna G. on 21.11.2018 and she lodged a complaint against him, his father, his mother and his sister on 05.02.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is the case of the complainant that she is a M.Com graduate and she is working as First Division clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Tumkur and after securing the job on compensatory ground due to the death of her father, she got married with the petitioner herein as they were acquainted with each other. The complainant's case is that prior to the marriage, the family of the petitioner had demanded 50 grams of gold chain, clothes worth Rs. 50,000 and cash of Rs. 3 lakhs and the same was given to the petitioner. The petitioner got married to the complainant on 21.11.2018 and the reception was held at Royal Convention Hall at Tumkur and after two months of the marriage, the petitioner asked the complainant to show the salary pay slip and further had instructed her not to spend money on her own accord, but to take money from him and also to hand over her salary to him. 4. It is also the case of the complainant that the petitioner used to receive calls from unknown ladies and he was hiding the identity of the caller. The complainant further states that one day she received a call from a female who was abused in vulgur language and threatened by the parents and sister of the petitioner. 4. It is also the case of the complainant that the petitioner used to receive calls from unknown ladies and he was hiding the identity of the caller. The complainant further states that one day she received a call from a female who was abused in vulgur language and threatened by the parents and sister of the petitioner. It is also the case of the complainant that one Padmavathi had called the petitioner's cell number which was received by the complainant and on enquiry it was revealed to the complainant that said Padmavathi had got married to the petitioner and abruptly she cut the phone call, due to which the complainant was mentally disturbed and upset. 5. It is also the case of the complainant that the in-laws of the complainant used to abuse her and threaten her to hand over the salary to them and not to give the same to her parents. The complainant states that she after receiving the call from Padmavathi, called her back and she came to know by said Padmavathi that she belonged to S.C community and she would initiate a false complaint by implicating her and send her to jail. The complainant has also stated that suppression of the marriage with Padmavathi by the petitioner has caused her immense mental cruelty and harassment by the petitioner. It is also the case that the parents in-law and sister-in-law were demanding 22 lakh rupees and 6 acres to be given to Padmavathi and as such they were demanding Rs. 50 lakhs and started harassing the complainant. The complainant further states that on 26.10.2019 at 11.55 a.m. the complainant delivered a male child and the petitioner and his parents and sister on visiting the hospital abused and harassed her by saying that the complainant is mentally unsound. The petitioner also tried to forcibly take away custody of the child from the complainant and in this regard, a complaint came to be filed in NCR No. 481/2019. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any such offences as alleged in the complaint by the complainant. It is further stated that the petitioner has done B.E. in Biotechnology and working as a Social Entrepreneur in solving the Malnutrition problem of the poor children and is a National level and State Government awardee in Child and Maternal Health. It is further stated that the petitioner has done B.E. in Biotechnology and working as a Social Entrepreneur in solving the Malnutrition problem of the poor children and is a National level and State Government awardee in Child and Maternal Health. The Petitioner further states that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Tumkur and hails from respectable family and has deep roots in the society and there is nothing that is sought to be recovered by the Investigating Officer pursuant to the case registered by the complainant. The petitioner further submits that he is ready and willing to offer surety to ensure his regular appearance before the Court/Investigating Officer and also ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that other accused persons 2 to 4 along with him had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Tumkur and the same came to be partly allowed granting the bail to the accused no. 2 to 4 and it was rejected with regard to the petitioner herein. 8. What requires to be seen in this case while granting or rejecting the application for anticipatory bail is whether the petitioner has made out a ground for grant of anticipatory bail and whether non-grant of bail will cause any hardship to the petitioner. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charge sheet has not yet been filed and the investigation is still under progress. 10. It is noted that the offences alleged by the complainant in this case are Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. What has to be analyzed while granting anticipatory bail is the gravity of offence, so that, if causes hindrance to the society, if such bail is granted and whether the petitioner would abscond from the judicial proceedings and whether there would be any threat to the witnesses and whether the petitioner would cooperate with the investigation of the case. In my view, the allegations made by the complainant prima facie do not show with any such serious gravity of offence and that the petitioner would flee from jurisdiction of the Court and would not co-operate with the investigation. In my view, the allegations made by the complainant prima facie do not show with any such serious gravity of offence and that the petitioner would flee from jurisdiction of the Court and would not co-operate with the investigation. The only allegation that is made against the petitioner is that there is demand for dowry and he has got married to one Padmavathi which has caused mental harassment and cruelty to the complainant. 11. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the Respondent State has not filed any objections to the petition but verbally objects to grant of bail on the ground that the accused/petitioner may abscond from the jurisdiction of Tumkur and tamper with prosecution witness. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS, (2011) AIRSCW 3813 and in the case of ARNESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER, (2014) 8 SCC 273 . There is no quarrel with the law laid down by the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others and this Court is in agreement that it is the discretionary power of this Court to grant bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently this Court is also in the respectful agreement with the Hon'ble Apex Court's ruling in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar that in case of matrimonial disputes and offences under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, granting of bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure should be liberal. 13. On perusal of the records and after having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed with certain conditions and the objections raised by learned High Court Government Pleader can be protected by imposing conditions. ORDER The Criminal Petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest by Kolala Police, Tumkur in Crime No. 14/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest by Kolala Police, Tumkur in Crime No. 14/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act subject to the following conditions: 1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with a likesum surety. 2. Petitioner shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses. 3. Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed and co-operate with the investigation. 4. Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly influence or coerce the prosecution witnesses. 5. Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Tumkuru unless prior permission is obtained from Investigating Officer. 6. Petitioner shall also appear before the Trial Court on the regular dates of hearing.