Muniraju vs State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7742/2017
BETWEEN:

Muniraju
S/o Muniyappa
Aged about 38 years
R/o Thornahalli village
Bairanahalli Post
Malur Taluk
Kolar District
PIN: 563 130 … Petitioner

(By Sri Gireesha J T, Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka
by Avalahalli PS … Respondent

(By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
even of his arrest in Crime No.62/2017 of Avalahalli
Police Station, Bengaluru District for the offence
punishable under
Sections 304B, 498A r/w 34 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
2

This criminal petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory

bail to direct the respondent-police to release him on

bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence

punishable under Sections 304B, 498A r/w 34 of IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, registered in

respondent – police station Crime No.62/2017.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are, the

mother of deceased is the complainant in this case,

wherein she has stated that the deceased was given in

marriage to accused No.1 and for a period of one year

she was happy with accused No.1 and there was one

child but subsequently died. The further allegations in

the complaint goes to show that accused No.1 and other

members of the family including the present petitioner

started giving ill-treatment and harassment to the
3

deceased stating that whatever the dowry she had

brought was inadequate and they were insisting her to

bring dowry from her parental place. The further

allegations are, because of this ill-treatment, the

deceased left the house of her husband and went to her

parental place and was staying with her parents. The

further averments in the complaint go to show that,

when the complainant had been to attend coolie work,

somebody informed her that there was smoke

emanating from her house. When the complainant went

and saw, the deceased sustained burn injuries and

committed suicide.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader

made the submission that it is a dowry death case and
4

even the deceased left the death note, wherein the name

of present petitioner is also mentioned in the complaint

as well as in the death note. Hence, he submitted that

as the offences alleged are serious, petitioner is not

entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner made the submission that in the death note,

apart from accused Nos.1 to 3, other persons names

i.e., accused Nos.4 to 8 is also mentioned. The

allegations are bald and vague as against the present

petitioner. Accused Nos.4 to 8 have already been

granted bail by the order of the trial Court. He also

made the submission that, accused No.2, the father-in-

law of the deceased expired yesterday. He further made

the submission that, even perusing the prosecution

materials, there is no prima-facie case as against the

present petitioner and he is residing separately since 17

years. Hence, he made the submission that by
5

imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be

admitted to anticipatory bail. It is also submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet is

already submitted before the concerned Court.

6. Looking to the materials placed on record,

the admitted fact even according to the prosecution case

and as per the complaint averments that, four months

prior to the alleged incident, she was staying in her

parents house. Therefore, there is no proximity of time

between the allegations against the accused person and

the incident of committing suicide by the deceased.

Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is

also filed, the petitioner has undertaken that he is ready

to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by

the Court. The alleged offences are also not exclusively

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view

of these materials, it is a fit case to exercise the

discretion in favour of the petitioner.
6

7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present

petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the

alleged offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A

r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act registered

in respondent police station in Crime No.62/2017,

subject to the following conditions:

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

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

iii. Petitioner has to make himself available
before the Investigating Officer for
interrogation, as and when called for
and to co-operate with further
investigation.

7

iv. The petitioner has to appear before the
concerned Court within 30 days from
the date of this order and to execute the
personal bond and the surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KMV*

Leave a Comment

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