Rajesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8571/2017

BETWEEN:

RAJESH
S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
27 YEARS, NO.1315, 7TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, TRIVENI ROAD,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.)

THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.331/2017 OF YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 304B, 498A R/W
34 OF IPC.

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on

bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections

498-A, 304-B r/w 34 of IPC registered in respondent

police station Crime No.331/2017.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that

the father of the deceased lodged the complaint before

the Sub-Inspector of Yeshwanthapura police station

alleging that he performed the marriage of his daughter,

Chandrika with the petitioner on 13.12.2015 and at the

time of marriage he gave the petitioner a chain, ring and

Rs.2 lakhs, so also mangalya chain, necklace and chain

to his daughter. The couple have a son. After marriage,

for about two months petitioner was looking after the

deceased well and thereafter started ill treating her for

dowry amount. The deceased used to tell the

complainant about that and he used to advice her to

adjust and lead her life. Panchayats were held in that
3

regard and despite that the petitioner used to ill treat

her. Two months prior to the death of the deceased,

petitioner and deceased set up a separate house and

there also harassment continued. The complainant

stated that on 21.8.2017 at 2 a.m., the brother of the

petitioner informed him over phone that his daughter

was admitted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital and required

him to go to said hospital. On the basis of the said

complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged

offences against the petitioner herein.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

4. I have perused the averments made in the

bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed

on record.

4

5. Counsel for the petitioner made the statement

that prosecution material will not make out a case for

the alleged offence under Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC.

Learned counsel submitted that false allegations are

made against the petitioner to falsely implicate him in

this case. He made the submission that at no point of

time the present petitioner demanded dowry from the

deceased. He never subjected her to any sort of ill

treatment or harassment. Counsel further made the

submission that now the investigation is completed and

charge sheet is also filed. The alleged offences are not

exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for

life. Hence, learned counsel submitted to allow the

petition and release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP made the

submission that looking to the complaint averments,

there are allegations that the petitioner was demanding

and insisting the deceased to bring the dowry amount

from her parental place and he used to ill treat her both
5

mentally and physically. He also made the submission

that looking to the complaint averments, it goes to show

that the deceased and present petitioner were living

together separately in a house. Hence, the burden is

cast on the petitioner to explain under what

circumstances the alleged incident took place. He also

made the submission that during investigation, the

Investigating Officer collected the statement of witnesses

and those witnesses have also stated about the ill

treatment and harassment meted out by the deceased

at the hands of the petitioner. Hence, he submitted that

petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

7. Looking to the complaint averments filed by the

father of the deceased, it is evident that there are

allegations with regard to demand for dowry and in

connection with the said dowry amount, the present

petitioner used to ill treat and harass the deceased. It is

also stated that in relation to this ill treatment and

harassment is concerned, the deceased used to tell her
6

father and father was advising her to adjust and lead

her life. Therefore, this statement made in the

complaint at this stage to be considered as statement of

the deceased made before her father regarding ill

treatment and harassment, which is also relevant piece

of evidence during the course of trial as oral drying

declaration by the deceased to her father. The materials

also go to show that the petitioner and deceased only

were staying in a separate house and the death took

place within seven years from the date of marriage.

Regarding ill treatment and harassment to which the

deceased was subjected to, there are prima facie

material placed by the prosecution. Looking to these

materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is

not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the

petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is rejected.

During the course of hearing of the petition,

learned counsel for the petitioner also made the
7

submission that charge sheet was not filed within 90

days, but it is filed on 92nd day of the alleged incident.

If that is so, petitioner to move an application invoking

Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. claiming default bail. In case,

if such an application is filed, the concerned Court is

directed to dispose of the same on merits at the earliest.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ln.

Leave a Comment

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