Naveen H vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 October, 2017








Naveen H.
S/o Hombegowda,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at 13/31, 4th Cross,
Thavarekere Extension,
Mandya Town – 571 403.
Working as Software Engineer,
HCL Technology,
Jigani, Bengaluru – 560 039.

(By Sri.A.H.Bhagawan, Adv.)


The State of Karnataka,
By Rajajinagara Police,
Represented by
The State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru – 560 001.


(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP.)

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.188/2017 of Rajajinagar police station, Bengaluru
city, for the offence P/U/S 498A, 306 and 304B R/W
Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.

This criminal petition coming on for Orders this
day, the court made the following:-


This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused

No.1 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his

release on bail for alleged offences punishable under

Sections 498 A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC

registered in respondent – police station, crime

No.188/22017 and on the next day, in view of the

further statement of the complainant, the offences under

Section 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act was also added in the case.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for petitioner/accused No.1 and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent – State.


3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1

made the submission that though it is a lengthy

complaint but nowhere it is mentioned about any ill-

treatment and harassment. He made the submission

that only allegation in the original complaint is he was

not loving his wife. Learned counsel also made the

submission that on the very next day i.e., on 24.08.2017,

the complainant gave further statement making

allegations regarding the demand for dowry. Hence, he

made the submission that it is the after thought and in

fact there was no such demand. It is also his

submission that the incident took place after two months

eleven days from the date of the marriage. During this

period, only one day the present petitioner stayed with

her and three days the deceased stayed with the in-laws

house and the rest of the period because of Ashadamasa

she was staying with her parents only. Learned counsel

made the submission that after the accused No.4 has

been added in the case, who is the mother-in-law of the



4. She has also made the complaint to the Police

Commissioner office, wherein the contents goes to show

that the deceased was not willing to marry the present

petitioner herein and prima facie, it goes to show, the

marriage was against her will and wish against the

present petitioner. Hence, learned counsel submitted

that in view of these reasons, by imposing reasonable

conditions, the petitioner/accused No.1 may be enlarged

on bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader made the submission that incident took place

within two months and eleven days from the date of the

marriage, he also made the submission that there was

an incompatibility between the couple. The further

submission is that the investigation is still going on.

Hence, the present petition is not entitled to be released

on bail.


6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and the order of the learned

Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application. So also

perused the other documents produced by the counsel

for the petitioner.

7. The complaint averments and as it is rightly

submitted, it is a lengthy complaint. The only allegation

as per the complaint is that the father of the deceased is

the complainant wherein it is stated that the present

petitioner was not loving his wife and that was the only

reason assigned in the original complaint, nowhere it is

mentioned that the petitioner either he was demanding

dowry or he was giving such ill-treatment and

harassment for any other reasons. But, on the next day

i.e., on 24.08.2017, further statement of complainant

was recorded, wherein it is stated that at the time of the

marriage, one gold chain, gold ring and clothes were

given to him and so also mentioned that the present

petitioner after the marriage was demanding the dowry

and he was also insisting her to bring a car and get the

house for the petitioner and it is mentioned by the

complainant that he came to know from his wife and his

eldest daughter. So, even this further statement is taken

into consideration for appreciating the bail petition, it is

not in the personal knowledge of the complainant about

these things. So, his further statement regarding those

things hearsay because his wife and daughter have

stated so.

8. I have also perused the call detail copies which

is voluminous, which goes to show that the couple were

conversating each other every day, as it is mentioned as

good morning and good night in between couple. It also

prima facie goes to show that the couple were in a good

terms and they were conversating each other apart from

that, the alleged incident took place in the house of the

parents only and not in the place of the present

petitioner had he taken place in the house of the

petitioner. It was the petitioner who could account the

same and the reason for such incident. Petitioner

contended in the bail petition that he is innocent and not

committed the alleged offences and he has undertaken to

abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with

death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing

stringent conditions, he can be admitted to regular bail.

9. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail

for the offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

registered in respondent – police station, Crime

No.188/2017 subject to the following conditions:

a. Petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to
furnish one solvent surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Court.


b. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses, directly or

c. Petitioner has to appear before the
concerned Court regularly.




Leave a Comment

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