CRLP1322 14 03 04 2014 PDF

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1322/2014
BETWEEN:
Smt. Sharwari Alagharu,
W/o. Sri. Pramod Alagharu,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at: Flat No.B106,
Ittina Abby Apartment,
8th Main, 7th Cross,
L.B. Shastry Nagar,
Near HAL Market,
Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore-560 017.
.. PETITIONER
(By Mrs. Akhila. H.K., Adv. for

Sri. Diwakara. K, Adv.)
AND:
1. State of Andhra Pradesh by
WPS, C.C.S.,
Hyderabad-500 084.
2. State of Karnataka
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001.
.. RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of

the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
the event of her arrest in Cr. No.506/2013 of 1st
respondent P.S., for the offence P/U/S 498A, 406,
354A, B, C and D, 201 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of
D.P. Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.5
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to
direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on
bail in the event of her arrest for the alleged offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 354(a), (b) and
(c), 201 of IPC and also under Sections 4 and 6 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent No.1police station Crime No.506/2013.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the

WPS, C.C.S., Hyderabad, have received the complaint
from one Smt.Leburi Venkata Ragha Sindhoora, W/o
Sesham Naga Sai Vasishta, a resident of Anjana
residency,
Sri
Ramanagar
Colony,
Kondapur,
Hyderabad alleging that she got married to Mr.Shesham

Naga Sai Vasishta on 14.2.2013 at Chiran Fort,
Begumpet, Secunderabad and it was an arranged
marriage through Telugu matrimony.
At the time of
marriage her in-laws demanded dowry of Rs.1 crore, but

the mother of the complainant gave Rs.50,00,000/- as
dowry and also an amount of Rs.9 lakhs towards
Adapadeachu Katnam and also given gold jewelry and
other articles worth more than a crore and immediately
after marriage petitioner and his family members
started harassing the complainant for additional dowry.
As the parents of the complainant failed to comply their
illegal demand, the complainant was necked out from
the house of the accused and even marriage also was
not consummated for non-complying of their illegal
demand and since there was no other alternative the
complainant
complaint.
approached
the
police
and
filed
the
On the basis of the said complaint, police
have registered the case in Crime No.506/2013 for the

alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

the petitioner-accused No.5 and also the learned
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the

course of his arguments has submitted that though the
crime is registered at Hyderabad, since the petitioner is
residing at Bangalore, for the purpose of transitory bail
petitioner can maintain the bail petition before this
Court.
In support of her contention she has also
produced a document regarding the
residence
of
petitioner at Bangalore. It is further submitted that false

allegations are made against the petitioner and against
other accused persons and they have been falsely
implicated in the case. No demand was made for the
dowry amount from the complainant nor they have
driven out the complainant from their house. It is also
submitted that other accused persons applied for bail

before the Court at Hyderabad under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. and the Court by order dated 23.1.2014 has
granted regular bail to accused No.1, copy of the said
bail order is also produced in the case. Hence, she has
submitted
that
apprehension
as
the
petitioner
is
having
the
of arrest at the hands of respondent
No.1/police at Karnataka, till filing of the bail petition

before the Court at Hyderabad she may be granted with
anticipatory bail.
5. As against this, learned Government Pleader

during the course of his arguments has submitted that
petitioner has approached this Court directly and
hence, the bail petition is not maintainable. It is further
submitted that serious allegations are made with
reference to the ill-treatment given to the complainant
in connection with payment of dowry and it is the case
of the complainant that because of the dowry amount
she has been harassed and sent out of her house.
Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner is not

entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail

petition and the order passed in the Court at Hyderabad
in respect of accused No.1, the husband of the
complainant and other materials placed on record.
7. Petitioner has made out a case of apprehension

of her arrest at the hands of the 1st respondent-police.
The offences alleged against the petitioner has been
denied in the bail petition contending that she has been
falsely implicated in the case. The alleged offences are
also
not
exclusively
punishable
with
death
or
imprisonment for life and the present petition is filed as

a transitory bail petition till filing of the petition before
the
concerned
jurisdictional
Court
at
Hyderabad.
Looking to these materials on record, I am of the

opinion that petitioner can be admitted to transitory bail
for a limited period by imposing reasonable conditions.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
The
1st
respondent-police are directed to release the petitioneraccused No.5 on bail in the event of her arrest for the
alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 406,
354(a), (b) and (c), 201 of IPC and also under Sections 4
and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in
respondent No.1-police station Crime No.506/2013,
subject to the following conditions:
(i)
Petitioner shall execute a personal bond

for Rs.25,000/- and furnish one surety
for the like sum to the satisfaction of the
arresting authority.
(ii)
This bail order will be in force only for a

limited period of 30 days from the date of
this order within which time, the
petitioner
has
to
approach
the
jurisdictional Court at Hyderabad.
Sd/JUDGE
bkp

CRLP1322 14 03 04 2014 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRLP1322 14 03 04 2014 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRLP1322 14 03 04 2014 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

(By Mrs. Akhila. H.K., Adv. for

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that the

Hyderabad alleging that she got married to Mr.Shesham

marriage her in-laws demanded dowry of Rs.1 crore, but

On the basis of the said complaint, police

have registered the case in Crime No.506/2013 for the

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the

In support of her contention she has also

produced a document regarding the

petitioner at Bangalore. It is further submitted that false

submitted that other accused persons applied for bail

of arrest at the hands of respondent

No.1/police at Karnataka, till filing of the bail petition

5. As against this, learned Government Pleader

Accordingly, it is submitted that petitioner is not

6. I have perused the averments made in the bail

7. Petitioner has made out a case of apprehension

imprisonment for life and the present petition is filed as

Looking to these materials on record, I am of the

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

Petitioner shall execute a personal bond

This bail order will be in force only for a

You might also like