SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

G E Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.589/2017

BETWEEN:

G.E. PRAKASH
S/O EKANTHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT. GANDHINAGAR VILLAGE
DAVANAGERE TALUK.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.No.269/2017 OF
DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT AND SECTION 304B, 302, 498A R/W 34 OF
IPC.

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2

ORDER

This is a petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The

petitioner is Accused No.1 in Cr.No.269/2017 registered

by the Respondent-Police for the offences punishable

under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

and Sections 304-B, 302 and 498-A r/w 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned

HCGP.

3. The complaint was made by one

Mr.C.N.Hanumanthappa, the brother of the deceased

namely, Kusuma. The complaint discloses that the

marriage of the deceased Kusuma took place with the

petitioner on 02.06.2013 at Davangere. There are

allegations that at the time of marriage, cash of Rs.2.50

lakhs and 30 gms. of Gold as dowry were given to the

petitioner. Even after the marriage, there was demand

by the petitioner and his parents for additional dowry

and in this regard, the deceased Kusuma was used to
3

be harassed physically and mentally by the petitioner

and his parents. The panchayaths were also held for

settling the dispute.

4. The specific allegation is that on 19.08.2017 at

about 2.30 p.m., the complainant received a call from

the petitioner and came to know about the death of

Kusuma. It is also stated that on the previous day

night, i.e., at about 10 p.m. on 18.08.2017, the

deceased had telephoned to the complainant and told

him about the assault made on her by the petitioner.

5. The police held investigation and filed charge

sheet against this petitioner and other accused.

6. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner

submits that other two accused have been released on

bail. The prosecution is not certain about the cause of

death. Whether it is suicide or homicidal is not clear.

The P.M. report shows that the opinion was kept
4

pending and the final report shows that the cause of

death was due to strangulation using the saree as a

ligature material.

He further submits that there are no eyewitness to

the incident and that the witnesses who have been

examined by the Investigating Officer only speak about

breaking open the door of the room, in which, the dead

body was found. He however submits that the

petitioner has a small child to be looked after and

therefore, for all these reasons, bail may be granted to

the petitioner.

7. The learned HCGP opposes the grant of bail by

submitting that the petitioner is the main accused and

because of differences between him and his wife in

relation to the demand for dowry, the petitioner himself

strangulated his wife.

5

8. Moreover, from the statements of the witnesses,

it is very evident that as soon as the door of the room

was broken open, the petitioner disappeared from the

scene and therefore, his conduct assumes importance.

For all these reasons, bail cannot be granted.

9. After considering the rival arguments, I am of

the opinion that though the death appears to have

taken place in the house of the petitioner, there are no

eyewitnesses to the incident. Merely because the

petitioner disappeared from the scene when the other

witness came to the place to open the door, it cannot be

said that he is involved in the incident. It is a matter of

proof. The witnesses examined by the Investigating

officer only speak about the forcible opening of the door

of the room in which the dead body was there. They are

not eyewitness to the actual incident of murder.

Therefore, under these circumstances, I am of the

opinion that this petitioner can be admitted to bail.
6

10. Hence, I pass the following order:-

(i) Petition is allowed.

(ii) Petitioner shall be released on bail

in connection with Crime No.269/2017

registered by the Respondent-police on his

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One lakh only) and providing two

sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of

the trial Court. The petitioner is also

subjected to the following conditions:

1) He shall regularly appear before the

Court during trial.

2) He shall not threaten the witnesses

and tamper with the prosecution evidence.

Sd/-

JUDGE
Srl.

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