SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Akash vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 September, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200866/2018
Between:

Akash S/o Shetteppa Gunjyal
Age: 34 Years, Occ: Agril,
R/o Satapur, Tq. Dist: Nashik
(Maharastra State)

… Petitioner
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
R/by Addl. SPP Kalaburagi
Bench-585106
(Through Almel P.S.
Dist: Vijayapur)
… Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant regular bail to the petitioner/
accused No.1 in CC No.182/2018 (Almel P.S. FIR (Crime)
No.81/2018) for the offences punishable under Sections
498A, 302, 304B R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the
file of Addl. Senior Civil Judge JMFC Court at Sindagi.
2

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.81/2018

of Almel P.S., Vijayapur, registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 307 R/w Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code and after completion of the

investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 498A,

302, 304B R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal code and under

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that, the

complainant’s daughter Smt. Divya was given in marriage

to the petitioner who is a resident of Devar Navadagi

village in Sindagi Taluk. The accused No.1-petitioner along

with accused Nos.2 to 4, who are the parents and sister of

accused No.1, respectively, used to demand the deceased

to bring gold and money from her parental house. She

was informing the complainant that she is not ready to go

and stay with the accused persons since they were

subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty and
3

accordingly she had come and stayed with her parents.

However, about 15 days prior to the date of incident, she

was taken back and she started residing in the house of

Accused No.4. On 11.04.2018 at about 3:00 p.m., the

mother-in-law of the deceased informed the complainant

over phone that Smt. Divya has sustained burn injuries in

the house of accused No.4 and that she has been shifted

to Sindagi Government Hospital. Immediately, the

complainant and others left for Sindagi. Again they were

informed that the injured has been shifted to Vijayapura

Government Hospital. Later the injured was shifted and

admitted at Gulbarga Government Hospital, wherein she

succumbed to the injuries on the intervening night of

14/15-04-2018.

3. Initially, the crime was registered under

sections 498A and 307 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code against accused Nos.1 to 4. After completion of the

investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offences

punishable under Section 498A, 302 and 304B R/w Section
4

34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent/State.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that there is no allegation that immediately before the

incident the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account

of any demand for dowry. He further submits that even

according to the witnesses i.e., C.Ws.12 to 14, accused

Nos.1 and 2 had left their house prior to the incident to go

to Nasik and even on the date of incident i.e., 11.04.2018

when the incident took place, the other accused were

along with the said witnesses. He further submits that the

investigation officer has filed a requisition before the

learned Magistrate to delete Section 302 of Indian Penal

Code.

5

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader contended that at the time when the deceased was

alive she informed the complainant that the accused

persons have caused burn injuries to her and in view of

the same, initially after her death Section 302 of Indian

Penal Code was incorporated. He submits that the accused

persons were given physical and mental torture to the

deceased demanding dowry from her parental house and

hence on these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the

petition.

7. That the first information report discloses that

the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was

performed about two years prior to the incident. The

accused was eking his livelihood in Nasik and later in view

of the torture meted to the deceased, she went and stayed

with her parents and thereafter about 15 days prior to the

date of incident she went to the village i.e., Devar

Navadagi and started staying in the house of accused

No.4. On 01.04.2018 at about 2:30 p.m. she sustained
6

burn injuries, which was informed to the complainant by

accused No.3 and when complainant and others went to

the hospital, they saw that the deceased had sustained

burn injuries and that the deceased informed the

complainant that Accused Nos.3 and 4 poured kerosene

and set her fire.

8. However, the investigation materials reveal

that according to the statement of the witnesses namely

C.W.12-Anitha, C.W.13-Puthalabai, on the date of the

incident both accused Nos.1 and 2 had gone to Nasik and

accused Nos.3 and 4 were along with the said witnesses

when the said incident took place and at that time they

have seen the deceased coming out of the house having

sustained burn injuries. The investigation officer has given

a requisition to delete Section 302 of Indian penal Code,

which is evident from the order sheet dated 13.07.2018 in

C.C.No.182/2018.

9. Considering the above facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that the
7

petitioner/accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail

in Crime No.81/2018 of Almel P.S., CC No.182/2018, on

the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi,

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302,

304B R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, on the following

conditions;

i. The petitioner/ Accused No.1 shall

execute his personal bond for a sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

Only) with two sureties for the likesum to

the satisfaction of the jurisdictional

Magistrate.

8

ii. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall not

either directly or indirectly tamper the

prosecution witnesses and he shall not

hamper the case of the prosecution.

iii. The petitioner/ Accused No.1 shall not

leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court

without the prior permission of the

learned Sessions Judge.

iV. The petitioner/Accused No.1 shall be

regular in attending the Court

proceedings.

If any of the bail conditions are violated, the State is

at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation