SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gobru S/O Kishan Rathod vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2020

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
8

ORDER

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/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 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