Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 617 (KAR)

Chetan Kumar Achari v. State Of Karnataka

2020-03-03

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. Perused the materials on record. 2. The wife of the petitioner lodged complaint against the petitioner and other accused persons. Consequently, the police have registered a case in Crime No.429/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 312, 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The other accused persons along with this petitioner have approached the trial Court for grant of anticipatory bail. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere having regard to the specific allegations made against the petitioner herein rejected the bail petition, however admitted the other accused persons on bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 4. The allegations made in the complaint are that after the marriage between the complainant and the accused which is a love marriage, they were living happily for some time. Thereafter it is alleged that all the accused persons started ill-treating and harassing her on the ground that if the petitioner had married someother girl, he would have secured more dowry amount and other articles etc. Inspite of giving some amount, two wheeler and gold articles etc, the accused persons did not desist themselves from illtreating and harassing the victim. They were giving pin-pricks to her one way or the other. As she could not tolerate the ill-treatment, she went to her parental house and started living there for some time. It appears there was some compromise and at the request of accused persons, she again came back to her matrimonial home. 5. After some days, again the ill-treatment started and therefore being frustrated, she consumed pesticide on 10.12.2019. However, the accused persons themselves have shifted her to hospital at Channagiri and then to Shimoga and again another hospital at Shimoga where she was treated and survived. Thereafter she went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint on 25.12.2019. 6. The allegations made against all the accused persons are similar in nature. Of course, there is no further allegation against the petitioner that he is addicted to vice habits or he has no love and affection towards his wife or he is having illicit intimacy with any other lady. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, an opportunity should be given to the parties to explore the possibility of settlement between themselves. Of course, there is no further allegation against the petitioner that he is addicted to vice habits or he has no love and affection towards his wife or he is having illicit intimacy with any other lady. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, an opportunity should be given to the parties to explore the possibility of settlement between themselves. In the event of sending the husband and other persons to jail, it may virtually give a death blow for such compromise between the parties. Therefore, in matters of matrimonial disputes, Court should always be slow in dismissing the application for grant of bail so as to open the doors to the parties to explore the possibility of settlement. 7. Considering the nature of allegations and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail however with stringent conditions. Hence the following order: The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 429/2019 of Channagiri Police Station for the alleged offences 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 he shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 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 week i.e, on every Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.