Srinivas vs Police Sub Inspector on 22 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8410 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

1. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE PILLA VENKATEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

2. SMT. JAYAMMA
W/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT
NEW TOWN BETHAMANGALA,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-570 038. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SUHAS B.SAPPANNAVAR, ADV.,)

AND:

POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
BETHAMANGALA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001. … RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL
IN CRIME NO.164/2017 OF BETHAMANGALA POLICE
STATION, K.G.F., DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
304B, 306, 498A R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

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

ORDER

This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking their

release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections

304B, 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC,

registered in respondent-Police Station Crime

No.164/2017.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the

complaint averments is, father of the deceased is the

complainant wherein he has stated that the deceased

was given in marriage to accused No.1 in the month of

February, 2016. At the time of marriage, they had given
3

one golden long chain, one necklace, one ankle chain,

ear-rings to the daughter of the complainant and one

golden chain and bracelet to accused No.1 weighing 200

grams and he has also given Rs.1,00,000/- at the time of

marriage. The deceased was treated properly only for a

period of four months. Thereafterwards, the petitioners

along with other accused persons started to give ill-

treatment and harassing her to get more money from her

parental house. On three occasions, the complainant

having discussed with his relatives had given

Rs.3,50,000/-. Subsequently, they were informed that

the deceased has expired and thereafter, the complainant

along with his wife, son and his relatives went to the

house of the accused persons and saw the deceased lying

dead. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be

registered for the said offence.

4

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 and

also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the

submission that the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3

were residing separately from accused No.1 and

deceased. In that connection, he has filed a document at

Annexure-E – Acknowledgment. He further made the

submission that the names of Rudresh B.S., – accused

No.1 and Swetha -deceased are shown in the said

acknowledgment. He also made the submission that

there is no prima facie case against the present petitioner

about their involvement in the said case.
5

5. Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the petition

and further submitted that by looking to the allegations

made in the complaint and other materials, it prima facie

goes to show that the investigation is still going on and

the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced by

the learned counsel for the petitioners along with the

petition.

7. Looking to the complaint averments, at this

stage, it is no doubt true that there are allegations made

against all the accused persons regarding demand for

dowry, but considering the documents produced in the

case, the document at Annexure-E – Acknowledgment is

said to be from food and civil supply, which prima facie

goes to show that the deceased as well as accused No.1
6

Rudresh were residing separately from the present

petitioners and it is one of the aspect to be considered

during trial. Apart from that, looking to the age factor of

the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, petitioner

No.1/accused No.2 is aged 68 years and petitioner

No.2/accused No.3 is aged 60 years as mentioned in the

cause title of the petition, which aspect is not seriously

disputed by the prosecution. The petitioners are in

custody and they are ready to abide by any conditions to

be imposed by the Court. The alleged offence are not

exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for

life. Accused No.1 being the husband has to explain the

circumstances under which the incident took place.

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be

enlarged on bail for the offences punishable under
7

Sections 304B, 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of

IPC, registered in Crime No.164/2017, subject to

following conditions:

i. Petitioners to execute a personal bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
concerned Court;

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses, directly or
indirectly; and

iii. Petitioners to appear before the
concerned Court regularly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PB

Leave a Comment

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