1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9349/2017

BETWEEN:

SANNBORIAH
S/O LATE JAVARIAH
40 YEARS
R/O ARAKERE VILLAGE
AND HOBLI
SRIRANGPATNA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 415
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR
ARAKERE POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE – 560 001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.176/2017 OF ARAKERE
2

POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC.

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

ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused

under sections 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail

for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A

and 306 of IPC registered in the respondent-police in

Cr.No.176/2017.

2. The deceased is one Jayakumari and the

complainant is the brother. On the basis of the complaint

lodged by the brother making allegations that his sister

was given in marriage to the petitioner herein and the

petitioner was giving ill-treatment and harassment to his

sister and he was also having illicit relationship with one

lady by name Savithri. Because of the ill-treatment and

harassment and the abusive words used by the petitioner,

so also about the physical and mental ill-treatment, the
3

deceased committed suicide. On the basis of the said

complaint, a case came to be registered.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and also learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel made the submission that false

allegations are made against the present petitioner. He

also drawn the attention of the Court and original

complaint and also further statement of the complainant

and submitted that in the original complaint there are

allegations against this petitioner. But in the further

statement, complainant has given a goby of these

allegations. Hence submitted that in view of further

statement of the complainant, it clearly goes to show that

the offences under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC will not

be attracted in the present case. Hence learned counsel

submitted that there is no prima facie material as against

the present petitioner. Now the investigation of the case is
4

completed and charge sheet is also filed, by imposing

reasonable conditions the petitioner-accused may be

enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader made the submission that in the complaint there

are allegations made by the complainant. Nowhere in the

further statement he has stated that as the people were

talking and because of that reason he mentioned those

allegations in the complaint against the petitioner herein.

But he made the submission that the daughter and son of

the deceased and the petitioner herein are the eye witness

to the incident. Their statement was recorded by the

investigating officer during the investigation which clearly

establishes that there used to be frequent quarrel between

the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner used to

assault the deceased and even the incident took place in

the matrimonial house itself. It is the other family

members informed the parental home of the deceased

about the incident. The petitioner has not at all informed
5

those things immediately . Hence he submitted that there

is a prima facie case against the petitioner of his

involvement in the alleged offence. Therefore, he

submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of

bail.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR and the complaint and other materials

produced in the case, so also perused the contents of the

complaint and further statement of the complainant. It is

true, in the further statement he has clarified that as

people who were talking about the petitioner herein,

accordingly he mentioned the name in the complaint. But

in fact, the complainant is not an eye witness. The

children i.e., the daughter and son of the deceased and

the petitioner herein are the eye witnesses to the incident.

7. Perusal of their statement recorded during the

investigation, they have clearly implicated the present

petitioner in committing the alleged offence. Perusing their

statement, prima facie it goes to show it is the petitioner,
6

who abetted for commission of suicide by his wife i.e., the

deceased. Apart from that the incident took place in the

matrimonial house. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to

explain the circumstances under which the incident took

place.

8. Looking to all these materials collected during

the investigation, I am of the opinion it is not a fit case for

grant of bail. Accordingly the petitioner is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE
psg*