IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3169 OF 2017
Between:
Preetham,
S/o. late Nagaraju,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at Threeneetra Mahal,
Near Forest Office Road,
Nagamangala Town,
Mandya – 571 432. …Petitioner
(By Sri. S. Shankarappa, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
By Mandya West Police,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Deepak,
S/o. Thammannagowda,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at No.7th Cross, Gandhi Nagar,
Mandya City – 571 432. … Respondents
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP for R1/State;
Sri. Ajay S., Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.439(2) Cr.P.C
praying to set aside the bail order passed in
Crl.Misc.No.303/2017 dated 16.03.2017 on the file of V
Addl. District Sessions Judge, Mandya, for the offence
P/U/S 143, 498A, 304B, 109, 114 R/W 149 of IPC and
Sec.3, 4 and 6 of D.P. Act.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court passed the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the 1st respondent-state and the
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
2. This petition is filed by the de-facto
complainant praying to cancel the bail order granted in
favour of the 2nd respondent in a case registered by the
1st respondent-police. Charge-sheet is submitted to the
Court in respect of the offence punishable under
Sections 143, 498A, 302, 304B, 149 and under Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/de-
facto complainant submits that the 2nd respondent and
the deceased were married on 17.04.2016 and the
victim committed suicide by hanging herself in the
matrimonial home on 25.11.2016. The deceased had
left behind a death note, and same was seized during
the inquest mahazar held by the Taluk Executive
Magistrate. From the death note it is reflected that the
petitioner harassed the deceased for additional dowry
though he had taken sufficient dowry in cash and kind
during marriage. Though the Sessions Court has
noticed that a prima-facie case is made out against the
2nd respondent, still enlarged him on bail without
providing sufficient safety measures about his conduct
during the trial period. In view of the bail order, 2nd
respondent is wandering in front of the house of the
brother of the deceased (petitioner herein) at
Nagamangala Town with his shoulders high and
proclaims that registration of Forensic Report can do no
harm to him. The trial Court ought not have enlarged
him on bail even after noticing from the material on
record that a prima-facie case is made out.
4. Sri. Ajay S., learned counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent submits that the Sessions Court
enlarged him on bail vide order dated 16.03.2017. It is
not the allegation against him, either by the petitioner
or by the prosecution that he has violated the terms of
bail. He is attending the Court regularly and he
undertakes not to tamper the witnesses and not to
indulge in illegal activity. The de-facto complainant has
not filed any complaint against him about wandering in
front of the house of the petitioner herein with
shoulders high and proclaiming as supra. In that view
of the matter, there is no merit in the submission on
behalf of the petitioner/de-facto complainant and
petition is liable to be rejected.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and also having perused the order impugned,
this Court feels that no illegality was committed by the
Sessions Court in enlarging the petitioner on bail
though a prima-facie case for the prosecution was
noticed. It is unknown procedure and principle of
criminal jurisprudence that a sentence shall run from
day one of the registration of complaint and evidentiary
material collected by the Investigating Officer is placed
before the Court. The learned Court below has took
note of the fact that there is no criminal antecedents
against him and he was in custody for three months to
enlarge him on bail. No special circumstance is made
out to deny bail to him. However, in the light of the
statements made at the bar that presently the 2nd
respondent is residing at Nagamangala town and the
case is pending before the Sessions Court, Mandya and
the petitioner/de-facto complainant is from
Nagamangala, it is fitness of things to direct the 2nd
respondent to mark his attendance before the town
police, Nagamangala once in a month i.e. in the first
week of every month till conclusion of trial.
Accordingly, this petition succeeds partly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SV/SB