Mahaveer S/O Bashrao Kamble vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200748/2017

Between:

Mahaveer
S/o Baburao Kamble
Aged about 25 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Harkood
Tq. Basavakalyan
Dist. Bidar
… Petitioner

(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
Through P.S.I.
Mudbi Police Station
Represented by Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi – 585 102
… Respondent

(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow this petition and enlarge accused
No.1/petitioner herein on bail in Crime No.38/2017
registered with the Mudbi Police Station (Matala Circle) for
2

the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B
R/w
Section 34 of IPC and to pass any other appropriate
orders as may be required in the facts and circumstances of
the case.

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 regular bail

in Crime No.38/2017 of Mudbi Police Station (Matala

Circle), registered for the offence punishable under

Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The genesis of the complaint is that, the

deceased Sushmita was given in marriage to accused

No.1 by paying some cash and gold as dowry. For the

first six months, she was looked after well by the

husband and in-laws and thereafter they started ill-

treating and giving physical torture to her for bringing

READ  Jitender vs State (N.C.T) Of Delhi on 31 May, 2017

the additional dowry. In the meanwhile, the deceased

gave birth to a girl child. For having given birth to the

girl child and also for additional dowry, again they
3

started ill-treating and harassing her and they used to

threaten the deceased that, she will be sent back to her

parents house, if she will not bring the dowry. It is

further alleged that, deceased has been to her parental

house and came back, but she did not bring the

demanded money. The complainant, his wife and son

also came and appraised the petitioner, his parents and

his brother about non-payment, but still ill-treatment

and harassment was continued. Ultimately, on

20.03.2017 at 11.00 a.m., accused persons pored

kerosene on the deceased and set her ablaze and as a

result of burn injuries, she died in the hospital. As

such, a case has been registered against the accused

persons.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4

4. The main grounds urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioner are that the allegation made in

the complaint is in omni bus and it does not disclose

the fact that, actually who ablaze the deceased by

poring kerosene. He further contend that, already

accused Nos.2 to 4 have been released on bail and even

on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be

released on bail. He further contend that, the petitioner

is in custody since more than three months and he is

READ  Shri Jagannath Trimbak Labade-vs-The State Of Maharashtra on 13 January, 2011

not required for the purpose of further investigation or

interrogation. He further contend that, the petitioner is

the only bread earner in his family and he has to look

after his age old parents and the family affairs. He

further contend that, the petitioner has got both

movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is

no chance of he being absconded. Further he contend

that, if the petitioner is released on bail, he is ready to

abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and
5

ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for

allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would

contend that, because of the ill-treatment and

harassment caused by the accused persons for demand

of dowry, the deceased had been to the parental house

and thereafter she returned with empty hand and as

she has returned with empty hands, the accused

persons further ill-treated and harassed her and

ultimately by poring the kerosene she has been ablazed

and as a result of the burn injuries, she died. He would

further contend that, the petitioner is the husband of

the deceased, who demanded the dowry and he is the

main cause for ill-treatment and harassment, there is a

prima facie material as against the petitioner and as

such, he is not entitled to be released on bail. On these

grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6

6. I have gone through the copy of the

complaint and other material produced along with the

READ  Veena vs State,Govt.Of Nct,Delhi & Anr on 28 January, 2011

petition.

7. The records indicate that, the deceased died

within seven years of marriage due to the burn injuries

and the records also disclose the fact that the deceased

died in the matrimonial house. Though there is no

specific allegation regarding who ablazed the deceased,

but the complaint clearly indicates that the accused

persons by poring the kerosene ablazed her and as a

result of the same, she succumbed to the burn injuries.

When there is specific allegation as against the

petitioner to the effect that because of the ill-treatment

and harassment caused by him for demand of dowry the

death has occurred within seven years, under such

circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be

released on bail. Though the learned counsel for the

petitioner contends that already accused Nos.2 to 4
7

have been released on bail, merely because the other

accused persons have been released on bail, the ground

of parity cannot be attracted, as the petitioner is the

husband of the deceased and the death has also

occurred within seven years of marriage for demand of

dowry. Even the investigation is still pending and

charge sheet has not yet been filed. Under such

circumstances, no good grounds are made out to release

the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However,

the liberty is given to the petitioner to move the trial

Court in the event if the charge sheet is filed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

LG

Leave a Comment

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