IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201556 OF 2019
Between :
Gobru
S/o Kishan Rathod,
Age: 25 years,
Occu: JCB Operator,
R/o.Sevu Naik Tanda,
Shadipur, Tq: Chincholi,
Dist: Kalaburagi-585 307. .. Petitioner
( By Sri R.S.Lagali, Advocate )
And:
The State of Karnataka,
Through the SHO,
Kunchavaram PS,
Rep.by the Addl.State Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench-585103. .. Respondent
( By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to release the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.9/2019 of Kunchavaram Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section
Crl.P.No.201556/2019
2
34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, pending before Prl.JMFC Court, Chincholi.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 in Criminal Case
No.247/2019 (arising out of Crime No.9/2019, of
Kunchavaram Police Station), pending before the
learned Prl.J.M.F.C., Court, Chincholi, has filed this
petition seeking his enlargement on bail under Section
439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter
for brevity referred to as `Cr.P.C.’), for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter
for brevity referred to as `IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity
referred to as `D.P.Act’).
Crl.P.No.201556/2019
3
2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is
that the marriage between accused No.1 and
deceased Taribai, was conducted on 19.2.2019. She
met with an unnatural death on 31.3.2019, which
according to the medical report produced by the
prosecution is due to consumption of organo-
phosphorus insecticide. The mother of the deceased
is the complainant in this case who has alleged in the
complaint that, soon after her daughter’s marriage,
that too, not even beyond ten days, the accused who
are the husband and father-in-law of deceased-Taribai
were pestering her to bring the balance dowry amount
of `40,000/-. In the process, they are said to have
pledged three tolas of gold said to have been given as
a part of dowry in a Bank and availed a loan of
`42,000/-. It is in that connection, on 30.3.2019,
deceased Taribai is said to have gone to her mother’s
house along with her husband with a request to pay
Crl.P.No.201556/2019
4
for the balance amount of `40,000/-. However, the
mother, who is the complainant herein, would not able
to arrange for the balance amount. By pacifying
them, the deceased was sent back to her husband’s
house. On the very next day i.e., on 31.3.2019, at
about 11.00 a.m., the complainant came to know that
the deceased Taribai had consumed poison. Even
according to the complainant, the husband of the
deceased, who is the petitioner herein, complainant
and others shifted Tarabai to a hospital, where she
lost her breath on the same evening at about
7.28 p.m. The complainant alleges that it was due to
the harassment for dowry by the accused, including
the present petitioner, her daughter met with an
unnatural death. After completing the investigation,
the respondent-police have filed the charge sheet for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B
Crl.P.No.201556/2019
5
read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
D.P.Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits in
his argument that the reason for the alleged suicide of
the deceased Taribai is not the demand for dowry,
but, she was disappointed when three tolas of gold
given to her in her marriage was pledged in a Bank by
her husband and father-in-law for availing a loan of
`42,000/-. It is for that act, she has committed
suicide, as such, there is no nexus between her death
and alleged dowry harassment. He further submitted
that there appears to be no direct allegation made
against the accused stating that he demanded dowry
either with the complainant or anyone member in the
parental home of the deceased.
Secondly, when the complainant is said to have
taken her daughter on the same day i.e., on
Crl.P.No.201556/2019
6
30.3.2019 in the evening to her house, had really
there been any seriousness in the situation regarding
alleged demand for dowry, probably the complainant
being the mother of the deceased would have stayed
with her daughter on that night till the alleged
situation comes to a normalcy. But, even according to
the complainant, after leaving her daughter in her
husband’s house, for no valid reasons, she left to her
another daughter’s house leaving the deceased all
alone in her house.
Thirdly, even according to the complainant,
when she came to know that her daughter has
consumed poison, it was the present petitioner who
among others has assisted her in shifting the
deceased Taribai to hospital. All these aspects at this
stage prevents this Court to prima facie come to a
conclusion that there are serious incriminating
Crl.P.No.201556/2019
7
materials against the present petitioner to deny him
the relief of bail.
Added to the above, a perusal of the charge
sheet paper would also at this stage go to show that
the allegations levelled against accused No.2, who is
none else than the father of the petitioner, were in no
way less or inferior to that of the allegations levelled
against the petitioner. As such, when accused No.2
has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal
Petition No.201177/2019, on 23.9.2019, I do not find
any reason to deny the same benefit to the present
petitioner on the ground of parity. However, the
apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may
abscond himself and may not be available for trial
may be checked by imposing suitable conditions.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order:
Crl.P.No.201556/2019
8ORDER
The petitioner – Gobru, son of Kishan Rathod, be
enlarged on bail in Criminal Case No.247/2019
(arising out of Crime No.9/2019, of Kunchavaram
Police Station), pending in the Court of learned
Prl.J.M.F.C., Court, Chincholi, for the offences
punishable under 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, subject to the
following conditions:
i) That the petitioner shall execute a
personal bond for sum of `1,00,000/- with
two solvent sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the enlarging
authority/Court.
ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Court
on all the dates of hearing.
iii) Petitioner shall not hamper or tamper
the prosecution witnesses and documents
in any manner.
Crl.P.No.201556/2019
9
iv) Petitioner shall give in writing about the
change in his address, if any, to the
Investigating Officer as and when such
change occurs and obtain
acknowledgement in that regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bk/
