Karnataka High Court Rajesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRL.P.No.2451/2014
BETWEEN:
Rajesh
S/o Veerappajji
Aged about 34 years
R/at Bettada Sathenahalli Village Halekote Hobli
Holenarasipura Taluk
Hassan District – 56.
… Petitioner
(By Shri.Pratheep K.C., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka
Rep. By Holenarasipura Town Police Station Hassan District
Rep. By its
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore – 01.
… Respondent
(By Shri.K.R.Keshavamurthy, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.226/2013 of Holenarasipura Town P.S., Hassan and S.C.No.71/2014 on the file of P.O and Addl. Dist. and S.J., F.T.C., Hassan, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of D.P.Act.
-2-
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: – ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 498A & 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’ for brevity)
3. It is alleged that the petitioner was married to one Vimala, in the year 2007 and that there was a demand for dowry at the time of marriage. In spite of the petitioner’s family having been provided with a large dowry, the harassment for further dowry had continued. In this background, it is alleged, that the petitioner had assaulted the deceased Vimala and had broken her right leg. Thereafter, made further demands to bring dowry and had driven her out of the house and had told her that if she did not fetch -3-
dowry she should not return to the matrimonial home. It is in this background, her body was found in Hemavathi canal and on the basis of the complaint by the father-in-law of the petitioner, a case has been registered, initially for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and later a charge sheet has been filed as aforesaid. It is in this background, that the petitioner had approached the Court below seeking bail, which has been refused on the footing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious and since the death of the petitioner’s wife was an unnatural one, the petitioner’s bail petition could not be considered.
4. Given the circumstance, the marriage of the petitioner had taken place in the year 2007 and since, the dead body of the petitioner’s wife was found in the river, without anything more, it cannot be said that the petitioner was instrumental in committing the offences alleged, which would in any case have to be established at the trial. Therefore, -4-
notwithstanding the serious allegations that are made, the petitioner being remanded to custody indefinitely, results in injustice.
5. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one solvent surety for a like sum subject to following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses.
(ii) He shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer. (iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.
(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.
SD/-
JUDGE
ss
