Bengaluru, June 29, 2022 – The LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72), Smt. K.S. Jyothishree, granted anticipatory bail to Gopal Varma and four of his family members in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of dowry demand and cruelty. The order, pronounced on June 29, 2022, pertains to Crl.Misc. No. 6039/2022, filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), seeking protection from arrest in Crime No. 121/2022 registered by the Marathahalli Police Station.
The petitioners are:
- Gopal Varma (Husband, Accused No. 1), aged 30, residing in Bengaluru.
- Narayana Varma (Father-in-law), aged 51, residing in Chhattisgarh.
- Gautam Verma (Brother-in-law), aged 25, residing in Chhattisgarh.
- Komal Verma (Brother-in-law), aged 26, residing in Chhattisgarh.
- Gautam Verma (The order lists a fifth petitioner, Gautam Verma, again, aged 25, suggesting a potential clerical duplication or listing of another relative).
The petitioners were booked for offences punishable under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 341 (Wrongful restraint), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (Punishment for criminal intimidation), all read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.
The Allegations of Matrimonial Cruelty and Dowry
The complainant, who is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No. 1, Gopal Varma, alleged that their marriage was solemnized on February 16, 2022. At the time of the marriage, the petitioners reportedly received ₹20,00,000/- in cash, ₹5,00,000/- as Stridhan, and gold ornaments valued at ₹5,00,000/-.
The complaint states that subsequent to the marriage, the petitioners, acting with a common intention, began treating the complainant with cruelty and started demanding additional dowry. Specifically, they allegedly demanded an additional sum of ₹30,00,000/- and a car.
The final incident leading to the complaint occurred on June 12, 2022, between 11:00 p.m. and midnight, when the petitioners allegedly quarreled with the complainant, reiterated the demand for the additional dowry and car, abused her in filthy language, and threatened her with dire consequences.
Petitioner’s Defense and Court’s Assessment
The petitioners, represented by Sri. Siddartha, advocated for anticipatory bail on the grounds of innocence. They contended that the complainant’s attitude had been strange after the marriage and even alleged that she was involved in an extra-marital relationship. They affirmed their readiness to adhere to any conditions imposed by the court.
The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections, reiterating the seriousness of the complaint averments and maintaining that there were prima facie materials sufficient to reject the bail application. The prosecution feared that if bail were granted, the petitioners might threaten the complainant and her parents.
Upon hearing both sides, the court, in its reasoning, acknowledged that the dispute was primarily matrimonial in nature.
The court made a crucial assessment regarding the status of the investigation: “It appears that I.O. has commenced the investigation, conducted mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses and completed the major part of the investigation.”
The Judge pointed out that the involvement of the petitioners was “yet to be proved” and that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Since the offences are triable by a learned Magistrate, the court found “absolutely no reason to deny benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage,” particularly after the major portion of the investigation was reported to be complete. The potential risk of the accused influencing the investigation was deemed manageable through the imposition of stringent conditions.
Final Order and Conditions
The court answered the main point of consideration in the affirmative and allowed the petition.
The Marathahalli Police Station was directed to release all petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 121/2022, subject to the following conditions:
- The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- each with a like sum surety.
- The petitioners shall not threaten the complainant and other witnesses.
The order provides protection from arrest for Gopal Varma and his family members while ensuring they remain available for the subsequent legal proceedings in the case.