- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3494 CRL.P No. 388 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 388 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHAKIR A AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O. PUTTHUMONU @ ABDUL RAHIMAN, R/AT DOOR NO. 1/233, PADIL MUBARAK MANZIL, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PUTTUR, D.K. DISTRICT-574 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABDUL MAJID KHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY MANGALORE WOMEN PS, D.K. MANGALORE, REP STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.RANGASWAMY R., HCGP) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3494 CRL.P No. 388 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 438 CR.P.C (U/S 482 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES COMMITTED U/S 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, U/S 506 AND 498(A) OF IPC ACT, U/S 4 OF MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE) ACT BY RESPONDENT MANGALORE WOMEN POLICE, MANGALORE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.115/2024, PENDING BEFORE HONBLE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANGALORE; THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALURU HAS DISMISSED THE BAIL PETITION ON 20.12.2024 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1088/2024. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and perused the materials on record. 2. First Information Report in Crime No.115/2024 of Mangaluru Women Police Station, Mangaluru city, is registered against accused Nos.1 to 4 for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3494 CRL.P No. 388 of 2025 Prohibition Act, 1961, Section 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights of Marriage) Act, 2019 and sections 506 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. Complaint is lodged by Smt.Fathima Afsa, wife of Shakir, on the basis of which, the aforementioned case was registered against her husband and in-laws. The petitioner is the husband and he is arraigned as accused No.1. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents-in-law and accused No.4 is the sister-in-law of the complainant. 4. It is alleged that the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 took place on 14.08.2022 and at the time of marriage, as per the demand of the accused, 35 sovereigns of gold and a TISSOT watch valued at Rs.25,000/- was given and the marriage was performed by spending about Rs.30,00,000/-. For about few days, the complainant was looked after well and thereafter, all the accused subjected her to physical and mental torture. On 21.12.2023, she gave birth to a female baby, and even thereafter, the harassment continued and the accused - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3494 CRL.P No. 388 of 2025 were not providing her proper food and also teasing her for giving birth to a female baby. Further, they snatched about seven sovereigns of gold ornaments from her, threatened her etc. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the entire allegations are false and in view of the matrimonial discord between the husband and wife, a false case has been registered against the entire family members. It submitted that accused Nos.2 to 4 have been enlarged on bail by the learned Sessions Judge and the prayer of the petitioner for bail has been rejected only on the ground that grant of bail to the petitioner will give a wrong signal to the society. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand has contended that there is specific allegation made in the complaint against the petitioner and since investigation is under progress, if he is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may not cooperate with the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3494 CRL.P No. 388 of 2025 investigation of the case. He has therefore, sought to dismiss the petition. 7. While considering a bail petition, courts have to be generally guided by the consideration such as nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, chances of tampering the witnesses and fleeing from justice. In Arnesh kumar vs. State of Bihar and another reported in 2014(8) SCR 128, the Hon'ble apex Court has held that a person accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which is less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, cannot be arrested by the Police Officer only on his satisfaction that if such person has committed the offence punishable as aforesaid. The police officer in such cases has to be further satisfied that such arrest is necessary to prevent him from committing any further offence, or for proper investigation etc. 8. The present case arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties. Whether the allegations - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3494 CRL.P No. 388 of 2025 levelled against the petitioner are true or not is a matter which has to be established in due course. The occasion to arrest the accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or there is a possibility of influencing the witnesses or accused fleeing from justice. It is held by the apex Court that when a case where the arrest is not necessary, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation, arid the self esteem of a person. 9. In the instant case, considering that it arises out of a matrimonial dispute and keeping in view the decision noted above, the relief sought in the petition can be granted by imposing necessary conditions. 10. Accordingly, the following: ORDER Petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.115/2024 registered by Mangaluru Women Police Station, Mangaluru shall be released in the event of his arrest, subject to following conditions: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:3494 CRL.P No. 388 of 2025 a) He shall appear before the Investigating Officer within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum. b) He shall furnish his residential address/contact number and shall inform the I.O. in case of any change in the address/contact number. c) He shall co-operate with the investigation of the case. d) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence/witnesses either directly or indirectly. e) He shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE nv