Karnataka High Court Lokesh vs State By Saligrama Police on 27 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2192 OF 2014 Between:
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at Bettahalli Village,
Mysore District – 560 063. …Petitioner (By Shri: Raju C.N., Advocate)
State by Saligrama Police,
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondent (By Shri: S.S.Aspalli, High Court Government Pleader) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in 2
Crime No.28/2014 of Saligrama Police Station, Mysore District, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The present petitioner is said to be the brother-in-law of the deceased, Smt.Shobha. Shobha is said to have married Manjegowda, the brother of the petitioner, on 9.3.2010. The petitioner was living along with Manjegowda and others in the same house. It transpires that Shobha’s father had received a phone call on 7.2.2014, from one of the neighbours of Manjegowda, to inform him that Shobha was dead and on receiving the information, he had rushed to the place to find that Shobha was dead. It was claimed that she had hanged herself and committed suicide. 3
However, on suspicion that she was driven to commit suicide by Manjegowda and his family members, the complaint having been lodged, the petitioner and his brother, Manjegowda had approached the Court below seeking bail and the same has been rejected placing the petitioner on the same footing as Manjegowda in accepting that there may be involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is in that background that the petitioner is now before this Court.
3. Given the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner was the brother-in-law of the deceased and that apart from the Postmortem report, to the effect that the deceased was found to have died as a result of hanging, it cannot be said that the petitioner was actively involved in any of the alleged offences that are sought to be made out against him. In any event it is a matter to be 4
established at the trial. The Court below could not have placed the petitioner on the same footing as that of the husband of the deceased even if the allegations are found to be sustainable. Therefore, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing a self-bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfactions of the Court below, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.
(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.