SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjunath V vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6672/2019

Between:

Manjunath V.,
S/o Late Venkatesh,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.64/1,
2nd Main, 7th Cross,
Opp: Ravinandana Schoo,
Kaveriura, Kamakshipalya,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru – 560 079. … Petitioner

(By Sri. Jaya Prakash B., Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
Madanayakanahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru.

Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
… Respondent
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.
No.155/2019 of Madanayakanahally P.S., Bengaluru for the
2

offences p/u/s 498A, 306 of SectionIPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
D.P. Act.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court, made the following:

ORDER

Petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime

No.155/2019 is seeking to be enlarged on bail in

connection with his detention pursuant to the

complaint lodged with respect to the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, Section306 of IPC and

Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The complaint has been filed stating that the

petitioner and the deceased were married and from the

said wedlock they have two children. It is further stated

that the brother of the deceased had lodged a complaint

stating that his sister had committed suicide and that

the petitioner was responsible for the same and the

death of the petitioner’s wife was solely due to the

harassment for dowry by the petitioner and also the

acts of cruelty inflicted upon the deceased.
3

3. It is noticed that the petitioner had been

arrested on 22.08.2019 and has been in custody since

then. It is also to be noticed that charge sheet has been

filed after investigation.

4. The prosecution relies upon the death note.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out

that the veracity of the death note has not been

established nor has the death note been sent to the

Forensic Science Laboratory to examine and give report

as regards to whether death note is in the hand writing

of the deceased. It is further contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that though the complaint

makes out a case of harassment for dowry, the death

note does not contain any such allegation. It is further

contended that the complaint is by the brother of the

deceased which though makes out other allegations,

prima-facie there is discrepancy in the death note on
4

which the prosecution relies to be main evidence to nail

the accused, and the version in the complaint.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the

prosecution has opposed the grant of bail and contends

that the petitioner was absconding after the dismissal of

his application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking

grant of anticipatory bail and that prima facie case is

made out as against the petitioner and the son of the

deceased has also in his statement implicated the

petitioner.

7. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner is

working as an employee in BMTC and that investigation

is complete and charge sheet has been filed, question as

to whether the acts of the petitioner resulted in driving

the deceased to commit suicide is a matter to be

established during trial. The veracity of the death note

and its contents is a matter to be proved and

established during trial as per law. Present proceedings
5

cannot be construed to be punitive in nature. Also

taking note that he is an employee of government

undertaking, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on

bail.

8. In the result, the bail petition filed by the

petitioner under Sec. 439 of SectionCr.P.C. is allowed and the

petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No. 155/2019 for

the offences punishable under Sections 498A, Section306 of

IPC and Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal
bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh
only) with one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for
the expeditious disposal of the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall physically present
himself and mark his attendance
before the concerned Station House
6

Officer, once in a month between 10.00
a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of
the trial

(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way any
witness.

(v) In the event of change of address, the
petitioner to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.

(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioner, shall
result in cancellation of bail.

Any observation made herein shall not be taken as

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VP

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