Mr.Manje Gowda vs State By Chikkamagaluru Rural … on 20 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8432/2017
BETWEEN:

1. MR. MANJE GOWDA,
S/O KENCHE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,

2. SMT. MASTHAMMA,
W/O KENCHE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,

3. KENCHE GOWDA,
S/O LATE KARI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF:
GIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
AMBLE HOBLI, MARLE POST,
CHIKKAMAGALUR – 577101.

(ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3 ARE IN JC)
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAJESH RAI K., ADV.)

AND:

STATE BY CHIKKAMAGALURU
RURAL POLICE STATION,
2

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT,
BANGALORE – 560001.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.337/2017 OF CHICKMAGALUR RURAL
POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 306, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.

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 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their

release on bail of the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 306, 201 read with 34 of IPC, registered

in respondent – police station Crime No.337/2017.

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

3. Looking to the prosecution material in this

case, firstly UDR came to be registered in UDR

No.12/2017 on the information of the father of the

deceased, which is dated 20.03.2017, wherein it is

stated that the deceased was given in marriage to

accused No.1 and the couple were having one female

issue. It is alleged that the accused persons were

picking up quarrel and they were abusing the deceased

alleging that she did not have male issue. The further

averments show that one Lakshmana Gowda informed

the complainant about the ill-treatment and

harassment and then they have advised the accused

persons not to give such ill-treatment. On 20.03.2017

morning at 3.00a.m. Manje Gowda telephoned the son

of the complainant that Smt.Yashoda was not felling

well and she became nervous because of the chest pain

and she has expired. Immediately, along with the
4

relatives morning at 6.00a.m. they went and seen his

daughter. He has suspicion in the death of his

daughter. On the basis of the said information firstly

the UDR No.12/2017 came to be registered. After 6

months 4 days again there is complaint by the

complainant making the very similar allegations in the

subsequent complaint also, in which it is stated that

medical report has been received, wherein the Doctor

states that death is because of strangulation. On the

basis of the second complaint, FIR came to be registered

against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable

under Sections 498A, 306, 201 read with 34 of IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners during

the course of his arguments has submitted that on the

basis of the first complaint, if there was really suspicion

against accused, the Investigating Officer could have

proceeded with the matter and only for the medical
5

records he ought not to have waited till 6 months 4

days. Even looking to the prosecution material, except

the bald and vague allegations, there are no specific

allegations against any of the accused persons. To

show that deceased was having chest problem, learned

counsel for the petitioners produced the records issued

from CSI Redfern Memorial Hospital. Hence, submitted

to allow the petition and to release the petitioners on

bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, during the course of his arguments has

submitted that, looking to the prosecution material, in

the earlier complaint and the subsequent complaint,

there are allegations that the petitioners used to give ill-

treatment and harassment because of the reason that

deceased did not begotten male child. He also

submitted that investigation is still going on, therefore,
6

at this stage, petitioners are not entitled to be released

on bail.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record, so also, the UDR proceedings produced by the

learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. Perusing the materials, as submitted by the

learned HCGP that even in the information for

registration of UDR case, and in the complaint of the

father of the deceased, there are allegations and

subsequently when the complaint also came to be filed,

there are also allegations that deceased was not having

the male child and for that reason they used to give ill-

treatment and harassment. Even there are allegations

that they were informing that they will return all the

articles given at the time of marriage and she can go

back. However, learned counsel for the petitioners
7

relied upon some documents to show regarding the

chest pain, which the deceased was suffering, and on

the basis of that he wanted to make the submission that

even in the subsequent complaint there is a reference

that when the telephone message was given, it was also

informed that deceased was having chest pain. Looking

to these materials, at this stage, I am of the opinion that

accused No.1 being the husband of the deceased is

responsible for same. Since learned HCGP submitted

that investigation is still going on, therefore, at this

stage, petitioner No.1, who is the husband of the

deceased, is not entitled to be released on bail.

So far as the case of petitioner Nos.2 and

3/accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the in-laws of the

deceased, are concerned, I am of the opinion that they

can be enlarged on bail by imposing reasonable

conditions.

8

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed-in-part.

Petition in respect of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is

rejected and petition in respect of petitioner Nos.2 and

3/accused Nos.2 and 3 is allowed. Petitioner Nos.2 and

3 are ordered to be released on bail for the offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 201 read with 34

of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime

No.337/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall execute a

personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each

and shall furnish one surety for the

likesum to the satisfaction of the

concerned Court.

ii. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not tamper

with any of the prosecution witnesses,

directly or indirectly.

9

iii. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have to appear

before the concerned Court regularly.

However, petitioner No.1 is at liberty to move the

concerned Court after completion of investigation and

filing of final report in the matter.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

Leave a Comment

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