IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7221/2017
1. Sri Devegowda @ Marigowda
aged about 79 years,
w/o Devegowda @ Marigowda
aged about 60 years
Both are r/o Channappanadoddi
Village, Mandya Taluk,
Mandya District Pin Code:571 401.
. .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri Shivaswamy, Adv.)
The State of Karnataka
By Mandya Rural Police,
Mandya Town, Taluk and District.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru -560 001. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of their arrest in Cr. No.473/2017 of Mandya Rural
P.S., Mandya District for the offence punishable under
Sections 304(B), 302 R/W 34 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following :
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused
Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a
direction to the respondent police that in the event of their
arrest, they be released on bail for the offences
punishable under Sections 304B, 302 read with section
34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime
No.473/2017. After investigation, charge sheet came to
be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A
and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for
the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and the learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners made
submission that the petitioners are innocent and they
were not involved in committing the alleged offence. They
are suffering from the age old problems and ailments.
The learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to
the document produced in this regard. Investigation of
the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed.
The learned Counsel submitted that accused No.1 is
surrendered before the police. Accused No.4 is granted
with bail by the order of the learned Sessions Judge.
Hence, He submitted that by imposing reasonable
conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the
course of the arguments, made submission that looking to
the complaint averments, there are specific allegations as
against the petitioners also that they have insisted the
deceased to bring more dowry amount from her parental
place and she was subjected to ill treatment, both
physically and mentally. The alleged incident took place
in the house of the petitioners. The learned HCGP made
further submission that during investigation, the
petitioners were not available to the investigating officer
and not cooperated in the investigation proceedings. They
were absconding. The charge sheet is filed showing them
as absconding accused. In view of this factual matrix,
they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record
including the medical records.
6. Looking to the allegation made in the complaint,
prima facie, there are allegation as against the petitioners
also that they were insisting the deceased to bring dowry
amount from her parental place, subjecting her to cruel
treatment immediately prior to the alleged incident. The
prosecution material goes to show that investigating
officer during the investigation recorded the statement of
witnesses. Investigating officer filed charge sheet showing
the petitioners as absconding accused. This goes to show
that during investigation, the petitioners have not
cooperated with the investigating officer to conduct
investigation and to interrogate them. Looking to the
alleged offence under section 304(b) which is also a
serious offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case
to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. The
petition is accordingly rejected.