Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Dowry Harassment, Considering Gravity and Allegations, Bail Granted

Case Title: Chandra Mohan v. State of Karnataka

Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 3843 of 2024

Dated On: 16th day of May, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

FACTS OF THE CASE

The complainant’s marriage with accused No.1, Chandra Mohan, was solemnised on 28.05.2017. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s family provided a dowry that included a 25-gram gold chain, a 10-gram ring, and Rs.5,00,000/- in cash. The couple has two children, aged about five years and one year and nine months. The complainant, a government servant, alleges that accused No.1 married her for her money and property. After the marriage, accused No.1 did not show love and affection and complained that the dowry was insufficient, continuing to mentally torture her. It is alleged that this harassment was instigated by accused Nos.2 to 6 (the family members of accused No.1). On 21.01.2024, between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., accused No.1 allegedly demanded the complainant’s entire salary and the transfer of a property site in her mother’s name to him. When the complainant refused, accused No.1 assaulted her, mishandled her, and attempted to strangle her, threatening her life. The complainant filed a police complaint on 06.03.2024. The police registered a case against the accused for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 114 (abettor present when offence is committed), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The case is still under investigation. The petitioners claim that the complaint is a reaction to an earlier complaint filed by Chandra Mohan (accused No.1) on 02.02.2024. In his complaint, Chandra Mohan alleged that the complainant did not allow him to care for his aged mother, who is suffering from cancer. The defence presented documents showing that petitioner No.2 (the mother of accused No.1) is receiving treatment for cancer. The defence argued that the complainant’s allegations are false and were made after the police had previously advised her based on the husband’s complaint. Petitioners 1, 3-6 have professional and personal responsibilities which they argue mitigate against their involvement in the alleged offences. The case revolves around allegations of dowry harassment, assault, and an attempt to murder by the husband and his family members against the complainant, who is his wife. The defence contends the allegations are retaliatory following the husband’s prior complaint about mistreatment by the wife. The court has considered the context, including the health condition of the husband’s mother and the professional background of some petitioners, and granted anticipatory bail with conditions.

 ISSUES

1. Are the allegations made by the complainant against her husband (accused No.1) and his family members (petitioners 2 to 6) credible and substantiated by evidence?
2. How does the delay between the alleged incident (21.01.2024) and the filing of the complaint (06.03.2024) affect the case?
3. Should the petitioners be granted anticipatory bail considering the seriousness of the charges and their personal circumstances?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):
2. • Section 498A: Husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

1. • • This section deals with the offence of a husband or his relatives subjecting a woman to cruelty, including physical or mental harm or harassment for dowry.

1. • Section 307: Attempt to murder.

1. • • This section addresses attempts to commit murder, prescribing severe penalties for anyone who does an act with intent to cause the death of another person.

1. • Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.

1. • • This section provides punishment for causing hurt voluntarily, which is applicable if physical injuries are inflicted.

1. • Section 114: Abettor present when the offence is committed.

1. • • This section applies when a person abets an offence and is present at the time of its commission.

1. • Section 504: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.

1. • • This section pertains to intentional insult with the intention of provoking a breach of the peace.

1. • Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation.

1. • • This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation, which involves threatening someone with injury to their person, reputation, or property.

1. • Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of the offence committed in the prosecution of a common object.

1. • • This section holds every member of an unlawful assembly liable for offences committed in pursuit of the common objective of the assembly.

2.  Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961:

1. • Section 3: Penalty for giving or taking dowry.

1. • • This section prescribes penalties for giving or taking dowry, making it a punishable offence.

1. • Section 4: Penalty for demanding dowry.

1. • • This section deals with the penalty for demanding dowry, which is punishable by law.

3.  Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):

1. • Section 438: Direction for grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest.

1. • • This section provides the legal framework for granting anticipatory bail to individuals who anticipate arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Sri D.S. Sathish, Advocate counsel of the appellant submitted that the complaint filed against them is an afterthought and retaliatory in nature. They assert that it was lodged only after the husband filed a complaint against the complainant, suggesting a motive of malice rather than genuine grievances. Pointing out the significant delay between the alleged incident and the filing of the complaint, the appellant contends that this casts doubt on the authenticity and seriousness of the allegations. They argue that such a delay undermines the credibility of the complainant’s claims. The appellant challenges the severity of the allegations by questioning the medical evidence provided. They argue that the injuries documented in the medical report are minor, contradicting the complainant’s claims of a serious assault and attempted murder. Highlighting their respectable positions in society, such as being a teacher and being employed in the police department, the appellant argues that their professional responsibilities make it improbable for them to engage in the alleged criminal activities. The appellant asserts that family members implicated in the complaint are innocent and wrongly accused. They argue that there is no substantial evidence to support the allegations against these individuals. Lastly, the appellant seeks anticipatory bail, emphasising their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and asserting that they pose no threat to the legal process. They argue that given the circumstances and the lack of credibility in the allegations, granting anticipatory bail is justified. These contentions collectively aim to challenge the credibility and timing of the complaint, question the supporting evidence, highlight the appellant’s respectable standing, and seek relief in the form of anticipatory bail.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

Smt. Waheeda M.MHCGP (High Court Government Pleader) counsel of the respondent submitted that the complainant’s allegations of dowry harassment and attempted murder are well-founded and supported by evidence. They argue that the complainant has provided a detailed account of the harassment she faced from her husband and his family members, including specific instances of violence and threats against her life. While acknowledging the delay in filing the complaint, the respondent argues that the complainant has provided a plausible explanation for the delay. They contend that the complainant was subjected to continuous harassment and abuse, which made her hesitant to come forward with her grievances immediately. Moreover, they argue that the delay does not undermine the credibility of the allegations, as the complainant’s fear of reprisal and societal pressure may have contributed to the delay. The respondent disputes the appellant’s interpretation of the medical evidence and the severity of the injuries sustained by the complainant. They assert that while the injuries may have been classified as minor, they were still the result of a violent assault and should be taken seriously by the court. The respondent challenges the appellant’s assertion of respectability, arguing that the appellant and his family members have a history of abusive behaviour towards the complainant. They contend that the appellant’s professional standing should not exempt him from accountability for his actions. The respondent maintains that the involvement of family members in the alleged offences is supported by the complainant’s testimony and other corroborating evidence. They argue that family members played an active role in instigating and perpetrating the harassment and violence against the complainant. Finally, the respondent opposes the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail, citing the seriousness of the charges and the risk of interference with the ongoing investigation. They argue that granting anticipatory bail would undermine the administration of justice and the complainant’s right to seek redress for the harm she has suffered. These contentions reflect the respondent’s position on the case and their arguments in opposition to the appellant’s claims.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court began by summarising the factual background of the case. It outlined the complainant’s allegations of dowry harassment and attempted murder against her husband (accused No.1) and his family members (petitioners 2 to 6). The court noted the specific instances of alleged violence and harassment detailed by the complainant, as well as the delay between the incident and the filing of the complaint.

The court then examined the contentions presented by the appellant. It considered the appellant’s assertions regarding the false and retaliatory nature of the complaint, the delay in filing the complaint, the interpretation of the medical evidence, the character and professional standing of the appellants, the implication of family members, and the request for anticipatory bail.

After analysing the appellant’s arguments, the court reviewed the respondent’s counter arguments. It considered the respondent’s position on the credibility of the complainant’s allegations, the explanation for the delay in filing the complaint, the severity of the injuries based on medical evidence, the character of the appellant and his family members, the involvement of family members in the alleged offences, and the opposition to anticipatory bail.

Moving on to the legal analysis, the court examined the relevant legal provisions, including sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) related to dowry harassment, attempted murder, and other offences, as well as sections of the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) pertaining to anticipatory bail.

The court then deliberated on the appellant’s request for anticipatory bail. It weighed the seriousness of the charges, the risk of interference with the investigation, and the likelihood of the appellant absconding or tampering with evidence against the appellants’ personal circumstances and the potential need for protection from arrest.

After careful consideration of the arguments presented and the evidence on record, the court rendered its judgement. It allowed the criminal petition and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants, subject to certain conditions. The court imposed conditions including surrender before the Investigating Officer, execution of a personal bond, cooperation with the investigation, and prohibition from leaving the jurisdiction without prior permission.

In its judgement, the court provided reasoning for its decision, addressing the issues raised by both parties and explaining the basis for granting anticipatory bail. The court emphasised the need to balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice and concluded that the conditions imposed would adequately safeguard the interests of the prosecution while ensuring the protection of the appellants’ rights.

The court concluded by issuing a final order granting anticipatory bail to the appellants in light of the circumstances of the case and the arguments presented by both parties. It directed the appellants to comply with the specified conditions and to cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani

 

Click here to view judgement