: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.
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
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
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
