IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6412/2018

BETWEEN:

Girisha A.P.,
S/o Paramesh Gowda,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at Near Beeralingeshwara Temple,
Ambale Village,
Ambale Hobli,
Chickmagaluru Taluk,
Chickmagaluru District – 577 101.
…Petitioner
(By Sri.Karthik Yadav U., Advocate for
Sri.S.K.Venkata Reddy, Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,
By Women Police Station,
Tumakuru – 572 101.
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 560 001.

2. Rajashekhar @ Raju,
S/o Chikkanna,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o Ambale Village,
-2-

Ambale Hobli,
Chickmagaluru Taluk,
Chickmagaluru District – 577 101.
…Respondents

(By Sri. M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP for R1;
R2 is served but unrepresented)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Cr.No.87/2017
(Spl.C.No.202/2018) of Women Police Station,
Tumakuru District for the offences P/U/S 498A, 304B,
114 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(ii)(V) of
SC/ST (POA) Act.

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

ORDER

This petition has been filed by the

petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in

the event of his arrest in Crime No.87/2017 of Women

Police Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 304B, 498A and 114 read with Section 34 of

IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) of SC and ST

(Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989.
-3-

2. I have heard the learned counsel for

petitioner and also learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State. Though the notice is

served to the complainant, he remained unrepresented.

3. Gist of the complaint is that the father of the

deceased is the complainant in this case wherein, he

has stated that in the month of January, 2017 the

deceased left the house and a police complaint was

lodged; she returned on 28.04.2017 and on enquiry, it

is revealed that she has already married with accused

No.1 in a temple; on the same day, i.e. on 28.04.2017,

the marriage was registered in the office of the Sub-

Registrar, Chikkamagaluru. The relatives of accused

No.1 were opposing the marriage on the ground that the

deceased belongs to Adi-Karnataka community and the

bridegroom belongs to Kuruba community. Therefore,

relatives of the bridegroom were instigating him to

harass and ill-treat the deceased in connection with
-4-

demand of dowry. She also revealed the same to her

father over phone stating that she was being ill-treated

at the instance of other-in-laws and on the next day, at

about 10 a.m., one Prakash called him over the phone

stating that Kavya had committed suicide by hanging.

On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been

registered.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel

for petitioner that there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging

the complaint. Already the charge sheet has been filed

and there is no allegation as against the

petitioner/accused No.1 to show that he has ill-treated

and harassed for demand of dowry. It is further

submitted that no complaints have been registered

against the petitioner/accused No.1 for ill-treatment

and harassment. Further it is submitted that the Post-

Mortem report and the opinion of the Doctor indicates

that except the strangulation mark no other injuries
-5-

were found. It is further submitted that where the

petitioner/accused No.1 and the deceased were

residing, as it is a inter-caste marriage, the parents of

the petitioner/accused did not visited the place where

she resided. In that context, she committed suicide. It

is submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is ready

to abide by any conditions imposed on him by this

Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he

prayed to allow the petition and to release the

petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that on

perusal of the entire material evidence, it clearly go to

show that soon before the death, there was ill-treatment

and harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.1.

Even one day prior to the alleged incident, the deceased

telephoned the complainant and informed about the ill-

treatment and harassment caused on her and even, she
-6-

expressed that she is thinking whether to live or not to

live. It is further submitted that the owner of the said

house has been examined, he has categorically stated

that the petitioner/accused No.1 used to ill-treat and

harass the deceased and has also advised the petitioner

stating that she is pregnant and he has not to torture

her for silly reasons. It is further submitted that the

petitioner/accused No.1 is the main accused for the

alleged incident which has taken place. When death

has taken place in the house of the accused No.1, under

Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is the

petitioner/accused No.1, who has to explain under what

circumstance the death of the deceased has taken

place. But he has not come forward with any

reasons/explanations. Under such circumstance, the

petitioner/accused No.1 is not entitled to be released on

bail. It is further submitted that since from the date of

registration, the petitioner/accused No.1 is absconding

and he is not available for the purpose of investigation
-7-

or interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to

dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the submission of the learned counsel appearing for

both the parties and perused the records.

7. As could be seen from the records, it

indicates that there are allegations as against the

petitioner/accused No.1. In so far as accused Nos.2 to

7 are concerned, the only allegation which has been

made is that they have instigated accused No.1 and

because of their instigation, accused No.1 used to ill-

treat and harass the deceased as such, this Court has

released the accused Nos.2 to 7. The ground of parity is

not applicable to the present fact of the case. On

careful perusal of the records, there are ample material

to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 has ill-treated

and harassed the deceased for demand of dowry. As a

result of the same, she has committed suicide by
-8-

hanging in the house of the petitioner/accused No.1

and he has also not come up with any specific case that

under what circumstance she has committed suicide by

hanging.

8. Under the said facts and circumstance, I feel

that it is not a fit case to exercise the power under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to release him on anticipatory

bail. In that light, petition stands dismissed. However,

liberty is kept open to file a fresh petition under Section

439 of Cr.P.C. If he surrenders, in that event the trial

Court is directed to without considering the above said

observations on merits, the bail application can be

considered.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS