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
