JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with this petitioner on 07.12.2020 and within a span of one month he started harassing the complainant and demanding additional dowry stating that his Company is under loss. Based on the repeated demand an amount of Rs.10 Lakhs was transferred on 21.12.2020 to the Bank account of this petitioner through RTGS. Thereafter, the accused again demanded for a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs from the father of the complainant. Hence, a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs was paid to accused No.1 by transferring the same to the Bank account of accused No.1 from the complainant's mother account through RTGS. Also an allegation is that 250 grams of jewels had kept in the Bank Locker, the same has been pledged with Muthoot Finance without knowledge of the complainant by this petitioner. When the said fact came to the notice of the complainant's mother, a sum of Rs.10,81,000/- was transferred to the account of accused No.1 for getting release of the gold ornaments pledged in the Muthoot Finance. Thereafter, the parents of the complainant demanded accused No.1 to return a sum of Rs.50 Lakhs given to him, but accused No.1 failed to return the said amount, he had caused the life threat and no information about him and whereabouts also not known. On an enquiry, came to light that he has not done any B.E., degree and he had falsely informed that he did B.E., degree and also running the Firm called M/s.Shrusti Consultations. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered and the matter is under investigation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier the petitioner has approached this Court in crime stage in Criminal Petition No.4933/2022 and this Court rejected the bail petition and liberty was given to approach this Court after filing of charge sheet and now investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed. 4. He further submits that the allegation that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.50,81,000/- and the same has not been stated in detail in the complaint and he is in custody from more than 110 days and there is no need of custodial trial and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. 4. He further submits that the allegation that the petitioner received an amount of Rs.50,81,000/- and the same has not been stated in detail in the complaint and he is in custody from more than 110 days and there is no need of custodial trial and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that within a span of four days of marriage, he persuaded the complainant to get an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and the said amount was transferred to his account. Subsequently also when he demanded for the money, the same was transferred from the account of complainant's mother and he also pledged 250 grams of gold in Muthoot Finance and hence there is prima facie case against the petitioner herein. 6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, specific allegation is made that this petitioner has received the amount from the mother of the complainant by way of RTGS and apart from that gold ornaments belonging to complainant were also pledged and the same were got released by making payment by the parents of the complainant. There is an allegation that he has received an amount of Rs.50,81,000/- and subjected the complainant for both mental and physical harassment and this Court earlier while rejecting the bail application in para No.6 made an observation to that effect. An allegation is also made that prior to marriage it is stated that he is a B.E. graduate and running a company but he is not an engineering graduate and made him to part with huge amount and when amount was received by way of RTGS and also investigation is completed and also material disclose that the gold which was pledged was got released by the parents of the complainant, the same is a matter of trial and when the investigation has been completed and charge sheet is also filed, the same has to be tested in trial. Hence, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Hence, it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.23/2022 of Women Police Station, Shivamogga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 498A, 506, 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute his 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 jurisdictional Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.