:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRL.P.NO.100439 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
KAMANAYAKA @ KAMANNA S/O HONNURAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O JIGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.M.JAVED, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH GUDEKOTE P.S.,
KUDLIGI TALUK,
REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANAND K.NAVALGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER(ACCUSED NO.1) ON
BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH GUDEKOTE POLICE STATION,
KUDLGI TALUK CRIME NO.74/2017 (NOW S.C.75/2017) FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A,
304B, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.1 seeking regular
bail in crime No.74/2017 now pending before the Principal
Sessions Judge at Ballari in S.C.No.75/2017 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) r/w
Section 34 of IPC.
2. The petitioner herein is accused No.1. Accused No.2
is the father of accused No.1 and he expired during
investigation. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the sister and
brother of accused No.1 and they are already enlarged on
regular bail.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was
given in marriage to accused No.1 on 27.05.2011. At the
time of the marriage, a sum of Rs.35,000/- and 2.5 tolas
of gold was given to accused No.1 by way of dowry. The
accused was in the habit of drinking alcohol and was
frequently quarreling with the deceased and pressuring her
to bring additional dowry from her parents’ house. On
account of the failure of the parents of the deceased to
satisfy his demand, he was ill-treating and harassing the
:3:
deceased. Being unable to bear the cruelty meted out by
accused No.1, on 01.06.2017 at about 1.15 p.m., the
deceased poured kerosene on herself and set her on fire in
the house of accused No.1.
4. The learned Government Pleader has not filed any
statement opposing the petition. However, he has orally
opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader and perused the charge sheet
papers. The investigation is already completed. The
material allegations levelled against the petitioner
attracting the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of
IPC are required to be substantiated by the testimony of
close relatives of the deceased. Therefore, there cannot be
any apprehension that the petitioner would prevail upon
the said witnesses. Insofar as the accusations attracting
under Section 304(A) of IPC is concerned, the said offence
is also required to be substantiated during the trial. The
apprehension with regard to threatening the witnesses
and tampering with the evidence can be allayed by
:4:
imposing necessary conditions. The custody of the
petitioner is not required to be extended solely by way of
punishment. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to
be enlarged on bail in crime No.74/2017 of Gudekote
Police Station on furnishing a bond in a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court,
subject to the following conditions.
i) Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court
as and when required.
ii) Petitioner shall not threaten or lure the
prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper
the evidence.
iii) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of
the trial Court without prior permission.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS/-
