IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2884/2019
S/o. Krishne Gowda,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at Sulagodu Village,
Hassan District 573 213.
(By Sri.Sharath Kumar H. N., Advocate)
The State of Karnataka
Hassan Extension Police Station,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru 560 001.
(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant regular bail in Crime No.338/2018
for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, Section302 of IPC
and Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by
Hassan Extension Police at Hassan on the file of the 3rd
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court, made the following:
Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in
connection with his detention pursuant to the
proceedings in Crime No. 338/2018 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, Section302 of IPC and
Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a
complaint came to be lodged on 07.11.2018 alleging
commission of aforestated offence. It is alleged that the
petitioner had married the deceased and that gold and
cash were given at the time of marriage and initially
though husband and wife lived in harmony,
subsequently difference of opinion developed and it is
alleged that the accused is stated to have had an illicit
relationship with another lady. It is stated that there
were frequent quarrels between the petitioner and the
deceased. It is stated that on 07.11.2018 enquiry was
made near the work place of Nandini. Subsequently, on
seeing the complainant’s daughter lying dead in her
house, complaint was lodged. FIR is registered.
Investigation is complete and charge sheet has been
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
case rests on circumstantial evidence and the question
as regards proof of offence is a matter for trial.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader
states that circumstantial evidence is strong and the
nature of injuries would indicate the manner in which
the deceased was done to death and opposes grant of
5. It is to be noticed that investigation is
complete and charge sheet has been filed. Petitioner is
in custody since 09.11.2018. The case of the
prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Though
the learned High Court Government Pleader states that
circumstantial evidence is strong, however, these are
matters to be proved during trial. Present proceedings
cannot be construed to be proceedings for punishment.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as regards
to the weight of evidence, petitioner is entitled to be
enlarged on bail.
6. 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. 338/2018 for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, Section302 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 not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way any
(iv) In the event of change of address, the
petitioner to inform the same to the
(v) 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.