S P Mohan Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1834 OF 2017

Between:
[
S.P.Mohan Kumar
S/o Puttappa,
Aged about 34 years,
R/a Somathanahalli Village,
Channarayapatna Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District – 562 129.
… Petitioner
(By Smt.K.Nalina, Advocate for
Sri.S.K.Venkat Reddy, Advocate)
[
And:
State of Karnataka
By Channarayapatna Police,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural Dist – 562 135.
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengalruru – 560 001.
… Respondent
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.101/2016 of
2

Chennarayapatana Police Station, Bengaluru Dist., which
is registered for the offence punishable under
Section
498A and
304(B) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of
D.P.Act and etc.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest by the

respondent-police in Crime No.101/2016 registered

against him and his family members in respect of the

offence punishable under Section 498A R/W 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The co-accused are on bail. The allegation is,

the deceased was married to the petitioner for one and

half years. During the marriage, dowry in cash was also

given. Subsequently, all the accused coerced the deceased

READ  K.P. Selvarajan-vs-The Chairman & Managing Director, on 20 March, 2003

for additionally dowry. There was a panchayat to console
3

the accused and the father of the deceased transferred

immovable property standing in his name to the

petitioner. The deceased committed suicide in the

matrimonial home by consuming pesticide. She expired on

04.10.2016 in the hospital while on treatment.

[

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in

fact there was no dispute between the husband and the

wife. During the spot mahazar, Investigating Officer has

seized a death note left behind by the deceased wherein

she attributes the torture on her by her aunt and uncle.

Since the petitioner apprehends torture by the

respondent-police, he may be granted anticipatory bail for

a limited period. So that he can appear before the

Investigating Officer and convince his innocence.

5. Learned HCGP while opposing the petition

submits that from the complaint allegation there is

sufficient material against the petitioner in respect of the

offences under Dowry Prohibition Act, and also for offence
4

under Section 498A of IPC. Without cooperating with the

Investigating Officer he is successfully avoiding him since

October 2016. Hence, not entitled for bail.

[

6. In the light of the above submissions and also

the complaint allegation, it is to be noted that all was not

well during the life time of the deceased. There was a

panchayat in respect of the dispute in the presence of the

elders of the village. In pursuance of which immovable

property was transferred to the name of this petitioner.

The father of the deceased in his complaint alleges that

READ  Manjunath vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 June, 2017

the deceased was tortured for dowry in matrimonial home

and she used to divulge her plight to her mother.

7. In that view of the matter, it is not a fit case to

exercise jurisdiction under Section 438 of CR.P.C. Hence,

petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE
DN/-

Leave a Comment

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