1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8419/2017
BETWEEN:

1. SRI THANGELA RAGHVENDRA
S/O THANGELA KONDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

2. SRI THANGELA NARENDRA @ CHINNU

BOTH ARE R/A NO 1227,
43RD CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT,
KALYAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE – 560043
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.HONNAPPA S., ADV.)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HENNUR PS
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE – 560001
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.251/2017 OF HENNUR P.S., BANGALORE
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3,4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their

release on bail of the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent

– police station Crime No.251/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners referring

to the contents of the complaint submitted that there is
3

no specific allegations and the allegations are bald and

vague. He also submitted that the daughter of the

complainant (deceased) was not cooperating with

petitioner No.1, the husband of the deceased, and other

family members, and she herself was picking up quarrel

with them. Even she was not ready to wait till

performing the marriage of the brother of accused No.1.

The allegations made in the complaint prima-facie

shows that only to falsely implicate the petitioners in

the case such allegations are made by the father of the

deceased. He also submitted that the alleged offences

are not exclusively punishable with death or

imprisonment for life, hence, by imposing reasonable

conditions, petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, during the course of his arguments has

submitted that, the allegations made in the complaint
4

shows that even at the time of marriage, money and

gold articles were given by way of dowry, subsequent to

that also accused No.1 and other family members

started insisting her to bring dowry amount from her

parental place and in that regard they used to give both

physical and mental ill-treatment. He submitted that

there are specific allegations in the complaint against

both these petitioners that they were giving ill-treatment

and harassment. It is also his submission that the

incident took place on 07.07.2017, and according to the

petitioners if it is not because of their ill-treatment and

harassment, then their natural conduct would be to

immediately inform the Police about the said incident,

which is not done in this case. He also submitted that

when the incident took place in the house, it is for the

accused person to explain the circumstances under

which the incident took place. Hence, submitted that

petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
5

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the allegations are made even against

the parents of accused No.1, but while filing the charge

sheet Police have dropped the case against them. It is

also his submission that the allegations are made even

against the friends of accused No.1.

6. Perusing the averments made in the

complaint and other charge sheet material collected

during investigation by the investigation agency, they

shows regarding the ill-treatment and harassment

meted out to the deceased by the petitioners. The

Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of

witnesses, who are the neighbours, even looking to the

statement of those witnesses, there is a material placed

by the prosecution regarding the ill-treatment and

harassment to the deceased by the petitioners insisting

her to bring additional dowry amount from her parental
6

place. The alleged incident took place in the house of

the petitioners within 17 months of marriage.

Therefore, looking to the charge sheet material, at this

stage prosecution placed prima-facie material to show

the involvement of the petitioners in committing the

alleged offence. Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise

discretion in favour of the petitioners and to release

them on bail. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR