Karnataka High Court
Mr Syed Sadiq vs State Of Karnataka By on 11 March, 2022
Bench: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.936/2022
BETWEEN
MR SYED SADIQ
S/O ABDUL WAHAB
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO KURSHID BUIDLING
3RD MAIN, 3RD CROSS
ISLAMPURA
BANGALORE -560017
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT NAGAMANI V, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HAL POLICE STATION
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE -560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.294/2021
OF H.A.L.P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.498-A, 506, 392, 394, 307, 316, 323, 324 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT ON THE FILE
OF THE 29TH ADDITIONAL CMM MAYO HALL COURT AT
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
1. Heard Smt. Nagamani V, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai K, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State and perused
the records.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 438
Cr.P.C., seeking grant of anticipatory bail for the petitioner
in the event of his arrest in Crime No.294/2021 of HAL
Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 392, 394, 307, 316, 323, 324, 506
read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged by the complainant-
wife against the petitioner-husband. The Police after
registering the case, investigating the matter.
4. In the mean time, learned counsel for the
petitioner expressing apprehension of his arrest by the
police approached the learned District Court for grant of
anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.700/2022. The learned
LXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City,
turned down the request made by the petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating
the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently
contended that the petitioner has no role whatsoever in
the alleged offences and the entire complaint is false and
fabricated. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew
the attention of this court that the petitioner has
approached the jurisdictional Family Court seeking the
relief of divorce in OS No.221/2020. Thereafter, with the
ulterior motive, present complaint came to be filed on
22.12.2021 belatedly with an intention to coerce and
harass the petitioner and therefore, sought for allowing the
petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposes the bail petition contending that petitioner
being the husband, is responsible for the cruelty and the
prosecution has also invoked offence under Section 302 of
IPC and therefore, custodial investigation of the petitioner
is very much necessary for the effective investigation and
thus sought for dismissal of the petition.
7. He also pointed out that even after dismissal of
the anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner in Crl.Misc.
No.700/2022, the petitioner is not available to the
Investigating Agency and therefore, investigation has
crippled to a considerable extent and sought for dismissal
of the petition.
8. In view of the rival contentions, this court
perused the materials on record.
9. It is an admitted fact that there are serious
differences in the matrimonial relationship between the
petitioner and the complainant, which has resulted in filing
a petition before the Family Court, Bengaluru in OS
No.221/2020, wherein the petitioner herein has sought for
grant of divorce.
10. The complainant appeared before the Court and
engaged the services of an Advocate and she is contesting
the said matter. Thereafter, belatedly, on 22.12.2021,
complaint came to be filed before the HAL police.
Admittedly, there are serious disputes and the
matrimonial relationship has been strained, the
continuation of the complainant in the house of the
petitioner is doubtful. Nevertheless, this court at this
stage, cannot express any opinion on the merits of the
matter by holding a mini trial as the same may prejudice
the case of the parties.
11. Suffice to say, following the dictum of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has issued certain mandatory directions in para 13 of
its Judgment in order to ensure that a Police Officer do not
arrest the accused un-necessarily and learned Magistrate
do not authorise detention. Further, the rights of the
petitioner be protected and at the same time, the need of
the custodial investigation by the Investigating Agency
cannot be lost sight of. Therefore, at this stage, need has
arisen to strike a harmonious balance between the rights
of the petitioner and the need of custodial investigation by
the Investigating Agency and accordingly, this court pass
the following:
ORDER
1. The petition is allowed.
2. The petitioner is directed to appear before
the Investigating Agency on 23.03.2022 at
about 10.00 am.
3. Investigating agency shall take the
petitioner to the custody for the purpose of
custodial investigation if any and thereafter,
complete the investigation on the same day
before 6.00 pm. and enlarge the petitioner
on bail by taking a bond in a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) with
two sureties for the like-sum to the
satisfaction of the Jurisdictional
Police/learned Trial Judge.
4. The petitioner shall not tamper the
prosecution witnesses or hamper the
investigation process in any manner.
5. The petitioner shall mark his attendance
before the investigating officer every
alternate Sunday between 10.00 am & 2.00
pm., till the final report is filed.
6. The petitioner shall attend the Court
regularly.
7. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction
of Bengaluru City, without prior permission.
Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle
the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
