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.
