IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08th DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9616/2017
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE DRIVER
RAJEEV GANDHI ROAD
BENGALURU – 560078. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA.K.A., ADVOCATE)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(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.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
bail for the offence punishable under Sections 498A,
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
3. I have perused the averments made in the
bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed
4. Looking to the complaint averments, there
are allegations by the brother of the deceased that after
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.
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
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.
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
Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.