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
