1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102050/2014

BETWEEN:

CHIDANAND S/O SADASHIV ANKALI AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O. INFOSIS TECHNILIGIES LTD., CORPORATE HEAD QUARTERS, PLOT NO.44 & 97A, ELECTORNIC CITY, ROAD, BANGALORE-560100, NOW AT AUSTRALIA. ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI : A G MULAWADMATH, ADVOCATE)

AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA RPTD.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. (WOMEN POLICE STATION, HUBLI) ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.S. PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER) 2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING THAT AN ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL BE PASSED AND THEREBY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR OF WOMEN POLICE KINDLY BE ORDERED AND DIRECTED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IMMEDIATELY IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN WOMAN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, IN CRIME NO.31/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506, 377, 354(A), 354(D), 149 OF IPC, 3 & 4 OF DP ACT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner along with accused Nos.2 to 6 is charge sheeted in Crime No.31/2014 of Hubli – Dharwad Woman

Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, 323, 504, 506, 377, 354A, 354D read with Section

149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. On the basis of the private complaint filed by estranged wife this case is registered. It is the allegation of complainant that, accused No.1 and complainant Ganga married on 12.05.2013, at . The accused persons demanded cash and valuables just prior to the marriage,

which had to be met. After the marriage, he had unnatural 3

sex with her. On his demand, additional dowry of

Rs.1,00,000/- was paid at Australia and he threatened that he will sell her to a club or to a prostitute house. He physically harassed her and demanded dowry of

Rs.10,00,000/- and insisted her to return to . He also threatened to upload the video, which he had taken earlier.

He further demanded Rs.50,000/- from his father-in-law.

Since it was not complied, he has driven his wife out of the matrimonial home at Australia on 03.11.2013, etc.

3. The accused Nos.2 to 6 are on bail. The bail petition moved by this petitioner is rejected by the learned

Sessions Judge mainly on the ground that the offence under

Section 377 of I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for 10

years along with fine.

4. Heard on both sides.

5. As of now, petitioner is residing at Australia on his

work visa. It is submitted at the bar that he is ready to come

over to India and submit himself for any kind of investigation 4

by the Investigation Officer. Since the date of marriage, till the complainant left India there was no sort of complaint against him. It is only when the petitioner objected his wife chatting with her boy friend, all the troubles started.

Petitioner is a software engineer. The entire story is concocted against him and his family members for the reasons best known to the complainant herself.

6. The nature of the allegation made against the petitioner is of serious nature. It is desirable to understand the dispute between the spouse in the backdrop of their psychological and emotional levels, subjecting the petitioner to undergo custodial interrogation by itself may not be solution. The apprehension of the petitioner is that he may be arrested in view of the allegation made under Section 377 of I.P.C. In my considered opinion, the lis between the parties needs to be probed with all care and caution including their counseling. If the petitioner is arrested, chances of any improvement in their matrimonial relations 5

will be too remote. In that view of the matter, petition is allowed.

i) Petitioner is granted anticipatory bail in Crime

No. 31/2014 of Woman Police Station Hubli. In

the event of his arrest, he shall be enlarged on

bail on executing a self bond of Rs.1,00,000/-

with one solvent surety for the likesum.

ii) He shall make himself before the Investigation

Officer for further investigation.

Sd/- JUDGE

hnm/-