Bhadrinath vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9616/2017

BETWEEN:
BHADRINATH
S/O M.N.BASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE DRIVER
R/AT No.34/2,
RAJEEV GANDHI ROAD
RAJYOTHSAVANAGARA
JARAGANAHALLI, J.P.NAGARA
6TH PHASE
BENGALURU – 560078. … PETITIONER

(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA.K.A., ADVOCATE)

AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560078
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.300/2017 OF PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 304B READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4, 6
OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
2

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

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

bail for the offence punishable under Sections 498A,

304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 6

of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent –

police station in Crime No.300/2017.

2. 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.

3. I have perused the averments made in the

bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed

on record.

4. Looking to the complaint averments, there

are allegations by the brother of the deceased that after
3

the marriage, the petitioner and his mother were giving

ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased insisting

her that at the time of marriage, she has not brought

sufficient money and told her to bring Rs.10,00,000/-

by dowry. There are also allegations in the complaint

that the present petitioner used tocome to the house in

a drunken state and he used to assault the deceased

insisting her to bring the additional dowry amount.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused

No.1 made the submission that there is no averment in

the complaint that immediately prior to her death, she

was subjected to ill-treatment in connection with the

dowry amount. It is also his contention that the accused

No.2 has been granted anticipatory bail by the order of

the learned Sessions Judge. He submitted that now, the

investigation is completed, charge sheet is also filed.
4

6. But the learned High Court Government

Pleader opposed the petition on the ground that there is

a prima facie case as against the present petitioner.

Looking to the prosecution material, it is not in dispute

that the incident took place within 7 years from the date

of the marriage. The death has taken place in the house

of the present petitioner. Therefore, it is the petitioner

being husband of the deceased, he is under the duty to

explain under what circumstances the death has taken

place.

7. Looking to the complaint averments, the

main allegations are against the present petitioner that

he was assaulting the deceased, coming to the house in

the drunken state, abusing and insisting the deceased

to bring Rs.10,00,000/- as dowry. The complainant –

brother of the deceased mentioned in the complaint that

Rs.6,00,000/- has already paid and even for the

remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, he was ill-treating

the deceased both by physically and mentally.
5

8. Looking to these materials, the learned High

Court Government Pleader justified in making

submission that as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act,

it is the petitioner-husband who has to explain the

circumstances under which the death has taken place.

Therefore, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in

favour of the present petitioner.

9. I have perused the order passed by the

Sessions Judge in respect of the accused No.2 – mother.

This was considered on the ground that she is a woman,

aged about 68 years which is shown in the petition.

Therefore, parity ground is not applicable to the

petitioner.

Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NC.

Leave a Comment

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