Sri Manjunath vs State Of Karnataka on 31 July, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’ BLE MRS JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3282 OF 2017

BETWEEN

1. SRI. MANJUNATH
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 34 YEARS

2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O MARADAPPA
AGED 67 YEARS

3. MUNIRAJ
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED 38 YEARS

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
THORANAHALLI VILLAGE
BYRANAHALLI POST
KASABA HOBLI
TALUK: MALUR
KOLAR DISTRICT – 562 102 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADV.)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION
2

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU

REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001 … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.62/2017 OF
AVALAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, WHICH
IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B R/W 34
OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petition insofar petitioner Nos.1 and 3 (Accused Nos.1 and 3)

may be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition insofar as

petitioners No.1 and 3 is dismissed as withdrawn.

2. Petitioner No.2 (Accused No.2 in the FIR)

apprehends arrest by the respondent-Police in Crime

No.62/2017 registered in respect of the offences punishable
3

under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

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

3. The allegation is, petitioner No.1 (Accused No.1 in

the FIR) was married to the deceased for three years. During

marriage, dowry in cash and kind was given to the

bridegroom on demand. The first issue from the marriage did

not survive. Subsequently, the accused persons (husband,

father-in-law and brother-in-law) used to torture the deceased

by demanding additional dowry and she was assaulted by

them on one such occasion was sent to the maternal house

and she stayed there for 2-3 months. Her mother had given a

pair of gold ear studs and had sent her to the matrimonial

home. But, she returned to the maternal house and stayed for

3-4 months. On 11.02.20117, the deceased went to the house

of the accused, she was assaulted and abused by the accused

and was forcibly sent to the maternal house. On the next day

i.e., on 12.02.2017, she committed suicide by setting herself

ablaze.

4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the allegations are vague. The petitioner No.2 is aged about

70 years, ailing with COPD problem and is not guilty of the

offence. Death as occurred at the maternal house of the

deceased and for the last one year, she was not staying in the

house of the accused persons. He further submits that, if

anticipatory bail is granted, petitioner undertakes to appear

before the Investigating Officer and participate in the further

investigation.

5. In the given circumstance, there is no impediment

to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in

part. The petitioner No.2 is granted anticipatory bail in Crime

No.62/2017 registered by the respondent-Police subject to the

following conditions:

i) He shall forthwith appear before the respondent-

Investigating Officer. In that event, the
Investigating Officer is at liberty to interrogate
him.

5

ii) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer
during further course of investigation.

iii) He shall not threaten the complainant and other
prosecution witnesses.

The petition insofar as petitioners No.1 and 3 is

dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST

Leave a Comment

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