SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri.Srinivasa vs State By Kengeri on 30 January, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9499/2017

BETWEEN:

Sri. Srinivasa,
S/o. Muniyappa,
Aged 35 years,
R/a. No.39/7,
2nd Cross, Vinayakanagar,
Nagadevanahalli,
Kengeri Upanagara,
Bangalore -560 056. … Petitioner

(By Smt. N. Padmavathi, Advocate)

AND:

State by Kengeri
Police Station,
Bangalore -560 056.
Reptd., by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001. …Respondent

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.302/2017 of Kengeri Police Station, Bengaluru city
for the offences P/U/S 498A, 304B of IPC and Sections
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.PC seeking his release on

bail for the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act registered in respondent-police station Crime

No.302/2017.

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. The counsel made the submission that even

perusing the prosecution material there is no material
3

placed by the prosecution to show that the alleged

offence under Section 304B of IPC is attracted in this

case. The learned counsel made the submission that on

the date of the incident, deceased and petitioner were

invited to the house of the relative for a function but the

deceased did not accompany and remained in the house

itself, by the time they came back at about 10.30 PM

they have seen she had committed suicide by hanging.

Hence, the counsel made the submission that there is

no material regarding ill treatment and harassment for

the dowry amount. Therefore the presumption cannot

be raised in favour of the prosecution. The counsel

submitted that now investigation is complete charge

sheet is also filed by imposing reasonable conditions the

petitioner may be granted on regular bail.

4. Per contra learned High Court Government

Pleader submitted that there was a demand for dowry
4

amount and the deceased was subjected to ill treatment

and harassment. In the complaint and as well as

statement of the witness, it is clearly stated that an

amount of Rs.22,000/-, 24,000/-, 35,000/- and

28,000/- were paid in different dates to the accused.

Hence, he submitted that the incident took place within

seven years from the date of marriage. It has taken

place in the house of petitioner / accused No.1 therefore

it was for the petitioner to explain under what

circumstances the incident has taken place. He also

submitted that in view of the matter, there may be

presumption under Section 113B that it is dowry death

case.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in

the case. So also the statement of witness recorded

during the investigation regarding her death. The date
5

of marriage is not in dispute so also the incident taken

place in the house of petitioner / accused No.1 who is

the husband. Looking to the statement of witnesses,

prima facie at this state they goes to show that the

deceased was subjected to ill treatment and harassment

in connection with dowry amount. Therefore, as rightly

submitted by the learned High Court Government

Pleader there is a presumption under Section 113B of

Indian Evidence Act. It is also for the accused No.1

being the husband to explain about the circumstances.

Looking to these materials, I am of the opinion that it is

not a fit case to grant bail to petitioner /accused No.1.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

UN/LL

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