Karnataka High Court
Mr. Deepak vs State Of Karnataka on 22 May, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:18334
CRL.A No. 1056 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1056 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. DEEPAK
SON OF JAYARAM SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.6-25
SEETHA NILAYA
KANCHANA KAMBALE HOUSE
MAME, AJEKAR, KARKALA
UDUPI-574 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SOMASHEKHARA HARVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MICO LAYOUT P.S.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
Digitally signed by
SREEDHARAN BENGALURU-560 001.
BANGALORE SUSHMA
LAKSHMI 2. MRS. GEETA V.
Location: High Court of WIFE OF MR. DEEPAK
Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.37
2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN
VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT
AREKERE
BENGALURU-560 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, H.C.G.P.)
***
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:18334
CRL.A No. 1056 of 2025
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2) OF
SC AND ST (POA) ACT, 1989 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.3397 OF 2025
(CRIME NO.116 OF 2025) REGISTERED WITH THE MICO LAYOUT P.S
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 3(5),
351(2), 351(3), 352, 85 OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP
ACT, SECTION 3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, AND
ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.116 OF 2025, NOW PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71).
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused No.1 being
aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2025 in
Crl.Misc.No.3397/2025 passed by the LXX Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru
(CCH-71) and seeking for releasing him on regular bail.
Factual matrix of the case:
2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.04.2025, the
complainant lodged a complaint stating that she was
working at a private company. On 15.05.2024, the
appellant introduced himself to the complainant through
NC: 2025:KHC:18334
the LinkedIn App. The appellant had assured her that he
would make necessary arrangements to secure a suitable
job to the complainant. Later, he had also promised that
he would marry her. In that pretext, it is stated that he
had committed sexual intercourse on her. Further, on
20.12.2024, the appellant and the complainant got their
marriage registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at
Banashankari, Bengaluru. Soon after the marriage, the
appellant was harassing her on the pretext that she has
to pay the dowry of Rs.15,00,000/- to take her to his
house as she belongs to scheduled caste. On
24.12.2024, she attempted to commit suicide. However,
she survived.
3. It is further stated on 06.03.2025, the appellant and
accused Nos.2 and 3 went near BTM Layout II Stage,
scolded her in filthy language and demanded
Rs.15,00,000/- and also threatened her that they would
take away her life. Therefore, she lodged a complaint
before the respondent - Police. The respondent - Police
registered a case in Crime No.116/2025 under the various
provisions. The matter is pending for investigation.
NC: 2025:KHC:18334
4. Heard Sri Somashekhara Harvi, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant
that the appellant is innocent of the alleged offences and
he has been falsely implicated in this case. Though the
complainant made an allegation that the appellant
demanded dowry in the form of cash, the fact remains
that he is the person who secured her suitable job and
also married her. After the marriage, she does not want
to live with him peacefully and she wanted to go away
from the appellant. Therefore, she lodges a false
complaint in order to harass the appellant in one or the
other pretext. Therefore, the appellant may be enlarged
on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Making such
submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to
allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
vehemently submitted that there are serious allegations
made against the appellant. The appellant had insulted,
assaulted and harassed the complainant / respondent
NC: 2025:KHC:18334
No.2 in one or the other pretext. Moreover, the appellant
is an influential person and there may be chances of
threatening the witnesses and also hampering the Court
proceedings. Therefore, it is not appropriate to grant
bail. Making such submissions, learned High Court
Government Pleader prays to reject the appeal.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also on perusal of the averments of the
complaint, it appears from the record that the
complainant married the appellant on 20.12.2024. She
was residing along with him in a rented house at
Bengaluru. There are certain allegations which she made
against the appellant in addition to the demand of dowry
of Rs.15,00,000/-.
8. In addition to the other facts and circumstances, the
complainant attempted to commit suicide due to the said
harassment. Be that as it may, on reading of the entire
material available on record, the appellant has made out
a case to grant bail. Therefore, it is appropriate to allow
this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:18334
9. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order passed by the learned LXX Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH-71) in Crl.Misc.No.3397/2025 dated
09.05.2025 is set aside.
iii) The appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime
No.116/2025 of MICO Layout Police Station, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) (Amendment Ordinance) 2014 and Sections
115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 85 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita 2023, subject to the following conditions:
a) The appellant shall execute a personal bond for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only)
with one surety for the likesum, to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
b) The appellant shall not threaten the prosecution
witnesses.
NC: 2025:KHC:18334
c) The appellant shall not hamper the Court
proceedings.
d) The appellant shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the Court till disposal of the case.
e) The appellant shall not involve in any other
criminal cases or such similar cases in future till
disposal of the present case.
SD/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
HKV/Bss
