Karnataka High Court C H Ragavendra S/O. Late Haladappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 March, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100311/2014
C H RAGAVENDRA S/O. LATE HALADAPPA
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: SUPERVISOR IN PDL
R/O. OPP KSPL SCHOOL,
(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADV )
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH CHITWADAGI PS DIST BELLARY
(BY SRI.V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THIS PETITIONER IN S.C.NO.32/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELLARY, SITTING AT HOSPET (CHINTWADI 2
P.S. CRIME NO.60/2012) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B, 306 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 & 4 OF DP ACT, 1961. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
One Mr.K.Millinath lodged a complainant against this petitioner and his other family members, alleging the offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at the initial stage, on the allegations that the complainant’s daughter by name Sushma was given in marriage to the petitioner about one and half years ago. At the time of marriage, on demand, they have given a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as dowry, four tolas of gold and other gold articles and other valuable materials to the petitioner. It is alleged that after some time, about one month after the marriage, the petitioner and his family members started ill- treating and harassing the deceased Sushma in demand of more dowry and other articles. In fact, she conceived during her stay in the house of her husband. Coming to know 3
about this, complainant and his family members went to the house of the petitioner and advised them to look after Sushma with all love and affection.
2. In this back ground, it is further alleged that in the month of July 2012, the petitioner and his family members ill-treated and harassed the said lady and also got aborted her pregnancy. It is also alleged that this petitioner has some illicit intimacy with some other lady. This also made the deceased being frustrated in the life. It is the specific case of the complainant that, on 4/8/2012 at about 6.30pm, she received a phone call from the mother of the petitioner stating that Sushma committed suicide in their house. The complainant and his family members went to the house of the petitioner and found that their daughter Sushma committed suicide by hanging herself in her room in the house of the petitioner.
3. On these allegations, the police have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet. Even after charge sheet is filed, it appears, the matter was referred to the C.I.D. 4
police for proper investigation as the complainant suspected the death of deceased is a murder. Even after that, the C.I.D. have investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet for the same offences. The other accused persons, in fact, the mother and sister of the petitioner have already been released on bail.
4. Looking to the charge sheet papers, the learned Counsel brought to my notice that the accused petitioner was not at all there in the house, at the time of incident. In the charge sheet papers, it s available that the employer of the petitioner has been examined, who has stated that on the particular date of the incident, the petitioner had been to the office at 9.30am in the morning and left the office at 6.40pm. The C.I.D. police also collected the materials to show that this petitioner was not there in house, when the incident took place. Looking to the materials available on record, none of the witnesses have stated, before the death there was any ill-treatment or harassment to the said Sushma and what was the time gap between the last ill-treatment and 5
death, in order to raise the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court has to see whether there was any ill-treatment or harassment soon before the death. Further, added to that the allegations mainly made against the mother and the sister of the petitioner that they have been ill-treating and harassing the deceased Sushma and the deceased Sushma was also frustrated because this petitioner was having some illicit intimacy with other girl. Whether this intimacy between the petitioner and other girl, was sufficient to drive this lady to commit suicide has to trashed out during the course of full dressed trial. It is seen that the petitioner was arrested on 5/8/2012, since then he has been in judicial custody. The trial is not yet commenced and it will take sufficient time.
5. Under the above said circumstances, when the charge sheet has already been filed and there is no material to show the time gap between the last ill-treatment and the death of the deceased, all these things in my opinion, has to be taken into consideration in order to implicate the accused 6
into crime. The allegations made in the complaint though establish that the death was occurred within short span of time after the marriage, nevertheless, the said allegation of ill-treatment and harassment have to be proved before the Court and the Court has to ascertain whether the same was sufficient to draw an inference that the said ill-treatment was sufficient to drive a woman to commit a suicide.
6. Under the above circumstances, considering the long stay of the petitioner in the jail, I am of the opinion, on imposing certain conditions, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
Hence, the following order is passed:- ORDER
Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to the following conditions: 7
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) He shall appear before the trial Court on all future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court, till the case registered against him is disposed of.