G E Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8217/2017

BETWEEN:

G E PRAKASH
S/O EKANTHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT GANDHI NAGARA VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577551
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PAVAN SAGAR FOR
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVS.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001 ….RESPONDENT

(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 CR.NO.269/2017 OF DAVANAGERE RURAL P.S.,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.3
AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SECTIONS 498A,
302, 304B R/W. 34 OF IPC.
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.1

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail

for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 302

and 498A read with section 34 of IPC and also under

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in

respondent police station, crime No.269/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for petitioner/accused No.1, so also the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent – State.

3. The deceased is the wife of the present

petitioner. the prosecution case in brief is that, she was

given in marriage to accused No.1 in the year 2013.

There afterwards, the petitioner and his family members

stated illtreatment to the deceased and insisting her to

bring the dowry amount from her parental place.

Deceased used to inform the parents over the phone
3

about the illtreatment. The further allegation is that, the

complainant was informed that his sister is dead.

Hence, the complainant along with others went to the

house of accused No.1 and saw the deceased.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

made the submission that, looking to the complaint

averments, similar allegations are made against all the

petitioners. The parents of the accused No.1 alongwith

accused No.2 approached this Court seeking their

release on bail. This Court after considering the merits

of the case, allowed the petition in part and granted bail

to the in-laws of the deceased but rejected the bail

petition in respect of accused No.2. On the basis of that,

the learned counsel for the petitioner made the

submission that by imposing reasonable conditions,

petitioner/accused No.1 may be granted bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader made the submission that looking to the

prosecution material, there is a prima facie case. Hence,

he submitted that it is not a case for grant of bail as the
4

petitioner is the main accused. There are serious

allegations as against the petitioner that he used to

assault the deceased insisting her to bring the dowry

amount. Hence, he submitted that as per the medical

opinion, death is because of the strangulation.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed in

the case so also I have perused the bail order of this

Court dated 10.10.2017 in Criminal Petition

No.7475/2017. Looking to the observations made in the

said Criminal Petition, the order itself indicates that

petitioner No.3 therein is aged 89 years old lady who is

unable to move independently. So far as petitioner No.1

therein is concerned, he is also suffering from ailments

because of a fracture which was a reason prayed for

grant of bail to the father of the petitioner herein.

Insofar as paragraph No.5 of the order is concerned, the

first petitioner – accused No.2 is concerned, at this stage,

there is a material to inform that it is not a natural

death. In all probabilities, he was present in the house
5

when the victim breathed her last in the matrimonial

house. Therefore, looking to that, even in the earlier bail

order also this Court has observed that there is prima

facie material to show that the incident has taken place

in the house of the petitioner herein. He being the

husband, he is accountable to explain the circumstances

due to which the death has taken place.

7. Looking to the material placed on record and

even earlier bail order, I am of the opinion that it is not a

fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the

petitioner.

Hence, petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MH/-

Leave a Comment

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