PRASANNA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.22/2022 registered by Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A , 504 , 506 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and read with Ss. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

(3.) This is a successive bail petition invoking under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. This Court during the crime stage itself found the prima facie material against the petitioner as observed in paragraph No.7 of the order dtd. 27/5/2022 passed in Crl.P.No.1803/2022 that the petitioner is the husband. No doubt, the other family members have been enlarged on bail. The Court has observed with regard to the parity is concerned, but it is observed that earlier complaint was given and subsequently complaint was withdrawn against the petitioner. The victim also made an attempt to end her life by consuming the tablet and she was taken to the hospital and she was an inpatient and thereafter she was discharged. An allegation is made that the brother of the victim pledged the gold ornaments and handed over an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh to make a separate house to this petitioner. Considering all these materials available on record, came to the conclusion that there is a prima facie material and it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C., in favour of the petitioner.