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