Preetham vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2017







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)


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:


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.

READ  Mangi Lal & Anr vs State on 28 June, 2017

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

READ  Gangamma Rudrappa Mallannavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2013

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.




Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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