Ramesh S/O9 Chandrappa Sutagundi vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100922/2017

BETWEEN:

RAMESH S/O CHANDRAPPA SUTAGUNDI
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ALAGUNDI, B.K. VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PSI, MUDHOL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR HCGP.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY
GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER AND THE
PETITIONER KINDLY BE ENLARGED ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.
1540 OF 2016 (CRIME NO.314 OF 2015) REGISTERED BY
:2:

THE PSI, MUDHOL POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDHOL FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 306,
201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on

bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

306, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in

respondent-Police Station Crime No.314/2015.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the

complaint averments are that one Gangappa has lodged

the complaint on 25.11.2015 before the Police Sub-

Inspector alleging that the father of the complainant has

six sons including complainant and four daughters.

READ  State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Punati Ramulu And Others on 19 February, 1993

Out of the four daughters, one Renuka had married

petitioner/accused No.1 and in the wedlock they have
:3:

three children. The deceased was residing with her

husband in the matrimonial home. The deceased

Renuka was sent back to her parental home one year

prior to filing of the complaint asking for dowry by all

the petitioner and other family members. Later the

elderly persons of both the villages have pacified the

dispute and the deceased was sent back to her

matrimonial home. Thereafter, brother of the

complainant namely Sangappa in view of Nagapanchami

festival had visited his sister’s home along with sweets

and the accused without accepting the sweets had sent

him back without treating him properly.

On 24.11.2015 at about 06.15p.m., the

complainant’s brother Shivanand had got a call from his

sister’s husband i.e., petitioner herein, stating that

Renuka died of heart attack, hearing the same the

complainant and his brother got scared. Then all the

family members and the complainant went to the said

place and seen the dead body of Renuka, there was a
:4:

ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. On the basis

of the same and on suspicion it is contended by the

complainant that the accused persons have caused the

death of the deceased as they have insisted her to bring

the property from her parental place, which she has not

done. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to

be registered for the alleged offences.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

READ  Rambali Chourasia @ Rambali Chou & ... vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 20 April, 2017

appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the

learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the contents of the complaint shows that

it is only on the basis of suspicion the case has been

booked against petitioner and other accused persons.

He has also submitted that marriage took place about

17 years ago. Therefore, after long lapse, that too, when

couple having three children, the question of giving ill-

treatment alleging demand of dowry does not arise at
:5:

all. He has further submitted that all other accused

persons were released on bail and investigation is

completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by

imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner may be

enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the

petition on the ground that when the present petitioner

given the information to the complainant, firstly he told

that deceased died because of heart-attack, but when

the complainant and other family members seen the

dead body of the deceased, there was a ligature mark on

the neck of the deceased, therefore, this itself shows the

involvement of the petitioner along with other accused

persons in committing the alleged offence. Hence, he

has submitted that petitioner is not entitled for release

on bail.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet
:6:

material containing the statement of witnesses, PM

report and the opinion given by the FSL regarding the

cause of death of the deceased. It is no doubt true, the

READ  Shrimal Shobhachand Bora And Ors.-vs-State Of Maharashtra on 2 November, 1992

witnesses, in their statements recorded by the I.O., have

stated that there used to be ill-treatment to the

deceased by the petitioner and other family members.

But the petitioner has contended in the petition that he

is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged

offence. As submitted, the marriage of the deceased

with the petitioner took place about 17 years ago.

7. Looking to the averments in the complaint,

the complainant raised suspicion that the petitioner

along with other accused persons might have caused

the death of the deceased Renuka. The offence alleged

under Section 306 of IPC is not exclusively punishable

with death or imprisonment for life. On the similar set

of allegations, other accused persons have already been

released on bail. Now the investigation is completed
:7:

and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing

reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to

regular bail.

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime

No.314/2015 registered by the respondent Police for the

above said offences, subject to following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish
one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court regularly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *