SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dayananda Bhovi vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9611/2017

BETWEEN:

DAYANANDA BHOVI
S/O SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC:MESON,.
R/O CHIKKARANGAPURA
BHOVI COLONY, KASABA HOBLI,
TIPTUR TALUKA,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572201.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI.RAVINDRA B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
TIPTUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
TUMKURU DISTRICT-572201.

(REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU-560001.)
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P. PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.112/2017 OF TIPTUR RURAL P.S., TUMKURU
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 302, 304B R/W 34
OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT.

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 offences punishable under Sections 498A

and 307 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent – police

station in respect of Crime No.112/2017. After

investigation, offence under Section 304B also came to

be included in the said case.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the
3

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner took

this court to the contents of the complaint, the

statement of the witness recorded and further statement

of the complainant and also the medical records

produced by the doctor and he made submission that

there is inconsistency in the case of the prosecution. In

the complaint it is mentioned that all the accused

persons gave ill treatment and harassment to the

deceased and poured kerosene on the deceased and lit

fire; whereas in the statement of the witness, it is

mentioned that the deceased itself committed suicide by

pouring kerosene on her and lit fire by herself. He also

drew attention of this court to the medical records of the

Karnataka Medical Department and produced the case

sheet in respect of the deceased Drakshayini and he
4

submitted that incident is accidental in nature and it is

due to burst of the stove. He submitted that in view of

the inconsistency in the statement of the prosecution

witnesses and that the investigation is complete and

charge sheet is filed, the petitioner may be released on

bail by imposing certain conditions.

4. The learned HCGP opposed the bail petition

on the ground that incident took place within 7 years

from the date of marriage and it took place in the house

of matrimonial house of the deceased. While recording

the statement of the deceased when she was alive, the

reasons are mentioned in the complaint that she was

not in a condition to give statement. He also made

submission that prosecution material goes to show that

the petitioner and his family members had ill treated

and harassed the deceased in respect of getting dowry

amount and gold ornaments from her maternal home.
5

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on

bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record.

6. In the complaint there are allegations that

the petitioner along with his family members were

insisting the deceased to get dowry amount and also

gold ornaments and they were ill treating and harassing

the deceased and there is mention about the same in

the complaint. Looking to the prosecution materials,

statement of the witnesses during investigation, it prima

facie goes to show that the deceased had undergone ill

treatment and harassment by the petitioner. Moreover,

the incident has taken place within 7 years from the

date of marriage. Considering these materials, I am of
6

the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise

jurisdiction under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DM

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Rules of Group, If You agree then Message us on Above Number.

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh