IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7” DAY OF FEBRUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTiCE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.12030/2010 BETWEEN: 1. Sayyad-Arifulla, S/o. Mahaboob-pasha Khadri Peerjade, Age: 30 years, 0cc: Government Servant. 2. Mehaboob-pasha, S/o. Yusufshah Khadri Peerjade, Age: 65 years, 0cc: Agriculture. 3. Meharunnisa @ Hayatabi. W/o. Mahahoob-pasha Khadri @ Peeijade, Age: 61 years, 0cc: Household. 4. Sayyad-yusuf, S/o. Mahaboob-pasha Khadri @ Peerjade, Age: 28 years, 0cc: Moulwi. All are residents of Kumbar oni, Mugad Taluk and Dist. Dharwad. . . . Petitioners (By Shri. Phaniraj Kashyap, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka by Mahila Police Belgaum Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, Circuit Bench Dharwad. . . Respondent (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to direct the investigation officer in charge of the Belgaum, Mahila P.S. Crime No.29/20 10 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A. 307, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Connection with the said crime. This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant one Sayeeda-haseenabanu Khadri had alleged before the Mahila Police, Belgaum, that she was given in marriage two years prior to the complaint to one Sayyad Arifulla Peerajade of Mugad village. At the time of marriage, that her husband was provided with Rs.20,000/- and she had joined him at matrimonial home. For two months all was well and thereafter, it is alleged that the members of the family as well as her husband started harassing her and sought more dowry. It was further alleged by her that, since her family was not able to provide an additional dowry, claims in a bid to poison her death. The complainant had noticed that she was being slowly poisoned and she got admitted in various hospitals and barely escaped from death and thereafter joined her parents on the threat of her husband that if the amount is not paid, he may divorce her by giving talaaq. On these allegations that the Police have registered a case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner having approached the Court below seeking bail the same having been rejected this petition was filed. This Court by its earlier order dated 09.12.2010, has granted interim anticipatory bail on certain conditions. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, he has complied with those conditions and would seek orders on the main petition. 4 3. The learned Government Pleader has filed his objections to state that the allegations in the complaint make out a heinous offence and therefore, since the mater is under active investigation, the petitioner ought not to be enlarged on bail, as it would seriously hamper the investigation and the prosecution case. Since the complaint proceeds on the mere allegations of the complainant since the case has been registered on the allegations in the complaint and since the complainant has not suffered any injuries or other physical harm by her husband and his family and since the petitioner are at large since the date of complaint The possibility of their interfering with the investigation, since the complaint is of September 2010 and it was possible that the Police have investigated the case in all these months. Accordingly, petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on bail. In the event, that they should be arrested on the following conditions: 1) They shall furnish personal bonds for a sum of U0,000/- each, with two solvent sureties for like sums, to the satisfiction of the trial Court. S 2) They shall make themselves available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purposes of investigation. 3) They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without seeking leave of that Court. 4) They shall not seek to induce or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 5) They shall attend the trial Court on all dates of hearing without fail subject to the Court granting exemption for good and valid reason. The conditions imposed on payment of Rs.3,000/- per month to the complainant shall continue to be in operation. Sd/ Rsh JUDGE