- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26672 CRL.P No. 2807 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2807 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SAVITHA PAREEK AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS W/O AMIT ASHOK VYAS R/AT NO 16, JOSHI NIKETAN 4TH CROSS, MANJUNATHA LAYOUT R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. VEDA MOHANA R, ADV., FOR SRI RAMAKRISHNA SRINIVASAN, ADV) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX KARNATAKA - 560 001. 2. AMIT ASHOK VYAS AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O ASHOK VYAS R/O FLAT NO.336 HARIKRISHNA SO MANPADA ROAD NEAR PANDURANG SCHOOL DOMBIVILLI EAST, THANE CITY MAHARASHTRA - 421 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.02.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED L ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE C/C LXXI Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26672 CRL.P No. 2807 of 2024 ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU INSO FAR AS THE RESPONDENT NO.2/ ACCUSED NO.1 HEREIN IS CONCERNED IN CRL.MISC.NO.1795/2024 AND TO REJECT THE ANTICIPATORY BAIL WAS GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2/ ACCUSED NO.1 IN CR.NO.227/2023 REGISTERED BY BASAVANAGUDI P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,504,506 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D,P ACT BY THE LEARNED L ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE C/C LXXI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU WHICH IS AFFIXED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER 1. This petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC is filed by the first informant with a prayer to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 herein in Crime No.227/2023 registered by Basavanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, vide order dated 28.02.2024. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Addl. SPP on behalf of respondent no.1-State. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26672 CRL.P No. 2807 of 2024 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner having reiterated grounds urged in the petition submits that respondent no.2 who has been granted anticipatory bail has not been attending the court, and thereby he has violated the bail condition. She also submits that the learned Single Judge was also not justified in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner who all alone had not co-operated with the police for the purpose of investigation. 3. The marriage of the petitioner with respondent no.2 was solemnized on 21.05.2023 and the same was registered on 22.05.2023. On 23.05.2023, respondent no.2 who is a citizen of United Kingdom and employed at Scotland, had returned to Scotland to resume his work. FIR in Crime No.227/2023 came to be registered on 07.08.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of D.P.Act. 4. It appears that since the sister of respondent no.2 had some medical emergency, respondent no.2 had traveled from Scotland to India on 18.02.2024 and he was detained by immigration authorities at Mumbai since a look-out notice was issued as against him in view of the aforesaid case registered by Basvanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru, in Crime No.227/2023. Thereafter, he was brought by Basavanagudi Women Police, to Bengaluru. It appears that considering the nature of allegations found against the accused and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26672 CRL.P No. 2807 of 2024 also the multiple disputes between the husband and wife, the police had not arrested him. Petitioner and his relatives who are arrayed as accused in the FIR had subsequently filed Crl. Misc. No.1795/2024 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court at Bengaluru seeking anticipatory bail and the same was allowed by order dated 28.02.2024 subject to certain conditions. 5. It is relevant to note here that though Basavanagudi Women Police had brought the petitioner to their Police Station from Mumbai where he was detained by the immigration authority in view of the look-out notice issued against him, he was not arrested, and therefore, it can be safely presumed that he had co-operated with the police for the purpose of investigation. However, respondent no.2 and other accused apprehending arrest by the police, had subsequently approached the jurisdictional Sessions Court seeking anticipatory bail. Considering the nature of allegations found as against the accused, learned Sessions Judge had rightly allowed the anticipatory bail application. 6. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended before this Court that respondent no.2 has not appeared before the Trial Court on regular dates of hearing, no material is produced in support of such allegation. Even the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court has not been made available to this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26672 CRL.P No. 2807 of 2024 7. Learned Addl. SPP who has been heard the in the matter, has not made any allegation before this Court that respondent no.2 has not co-operated with the police for the purpose of investigation or that he has not been appearing before the court on regular dates of hearing. 8. The material on record would also go to show that petitioner herein had filed W.P.No.5800/2024 before this Court with a prayer to hand over investigation of the present case to a Special Investigation Team, or to refer the case to CBI. In the said writ petition, she also had sought for a direction to arrest respondent no.2 and produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Further, she had also sought to initiate departmental inquiry against the Police Officers of Basavanagudi Women Police Station. The said writ petition was heard along with W.P.No.6227/2024 which was filed respondent no.2 herein questioning the look-out notice issued as against him, and disposed of by order dated 01.09.2025. 9. Perusal of the final order passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions would go to show that W.P.No.6227/2024 was disposed of as withdrawn and W.P.No.5800/2024 was disposed of on merits. A reading of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition would go to show that after FIR was registered in the present case, the petitioner - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26672 CRL.P No. 2807 of 2024 has initiated three other proceedings as against her husband. M.C.No.4893/2023 is filed by her before the jurisdictional Family Court with a prayer to anull her marriage with respondent no.2. Crl. Misc. No.637/2023 is filed before the jurisdictional Family Court under Section 125 Cr.PC seeking ad interim maintenance from her husband and Crl. Misc. No.116/2023 is filed before the Court of jurisdictional Magistrate at Bengaluru, against her husband and in- laws under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 10. A reading of the first information which is submitted on 07.08.2023 would go to show that after the marriage was performed between the petitioner and respondent no.2, he was in India only for two days. On 23.05.2023, he had returned to Scotland and allegation in the first information is that he had refused to take the petitioner along with him to Scotland, and on the other hand, after going to Scotland, he had demanded divorce from the petitioner and also threatened her over phone with dire consequences to her life. It is further alleged that since the kidney of the sister of respondent no.2 had failed, he had demanded the petitioner to donate her kidney to his sister. The aforesaid allegations are not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under Sections 498A IPC, and in so far as the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26672 CRL.P No. 2807 of 2024 offences under Sections 504 & 506 IPC are concerned, they are bailable in nature. 11. A reading of the order passed in W.P.No.5800/2024 would go to show that respondent no.2 who is a citizen of United Kingdom is a divorcee and after divorcing his first wife through a court of law in Scotland on 01.04.2019, he was single. His family members had uploaded his resume in a marriage portal viz., All India Pareek Vaivahik Samiti and after the parents of the petitioner herein who were looking for a suitable bridegroom for their daughter, had come across the resume of respondent no.2 they had agreed to get their daughter married to him and thereafter the marriage was solemnized on 21.05.2023 and the same was registered on 22.05.2023. 12. It is not in dispute that respondent no.2 who is a citizen of United Kingdom, is gainfully employed in Scotland. Under the circumstances, the aforesaid allegations made against respondent no.2 and his family members about demand and payment of dowry, etc., becomes doubtful. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was justified in granting anticipatory bail to the accused person in the present case. No supervening circumstances have been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner so as to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 herein. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26672 CRL.P No. 2807 of 2024 petitioner to set aside the order dated 28.02.2024 passed in Crl. Misc. No.1795/2024 by the Court of LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, and cancel the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 herein is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK