IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4441/2018
BETWEEN:
Mr. Prabhakar @ Uday
S/o. Shakthivel,
Aged about 27 years,
R/a No. 10, 1st Cross,
16th Main, B.T.M 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 076. … Petitioner
(By Sri.P.Nehru., Advocate, )
AND:
State by SHO,
Mico Layout P.S,
Bengaluru,
Rep. by SPP,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent
(By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP)
-2-
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Crime No.513/2017 (S.C.No.674/2018) of Mico Layout
P.S., Bengaluru for the offences P/U/S 498A, 304B r/w
34 of IPC and Sections 4, 6 of D.P Act and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petition has been filed by the
petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
praying to release him on bail for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of
IPC also under Sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition
Act in Crime No.513/2017 of Mico Layout Police
Station, Bengaluru.
2. I have heard Sri.P.Nehru, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. K.P.Yoganna, learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The genesis of the case of the prosecution
are that petitioner-accused No.1 and the deceased
-3-
Nethra fell in love with each other and the mother of
deceased after coming to know the said fact, she
arranged the marriage and thereafter they started to
reside near Prasanna Bar and Restaurant. Out of the
said wed lock the deceased gave birth to a female child
and subsequently the deceased informed the
complainant that her husband wanted to do hotel
business and as such the complainant had to give
`1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and as per the
request the said amount was given, but the petitioner-
accused No.1 had not started any such business and
subsequently, to buy an auto he further demanded an
amount of `50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only), the
said amount was paid and it was lavishly spent, as he
was addicted to alcohol and other habits and thereafter
again the petitioner-accused No.1 demanded
`1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to start vegetable
business and the complainant gave the demanded
amount and that was also spent. Thereafter the
-4-
petitioner’s mother and other family members started to
ill-treat and harass the deceased for dowry. On
20.10.2017, at about 9.30 p.m., the brother of the
petitioner-accused No.1 phoned to the son of the
complainant and informed that his sister Nethra, while
having the dinner she had vomited blood and they took
her to hospital and immediately the complainant went
to Sagar Hospital, by that time, the complainant went
there he saw his daughter was already dead. After
suspecting that the deceased died due to ill-treatment
and harassment caused by the petitioner-accused No.1,
a complaint was registered.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the deceased and the
petitioner-accused No.1 got married out of the love and
there was no demand for dowry and he further
submitted that the statement of the neighboring witness
also clearly goes to show that the deceased and the
-5-
petitioner-accused No.1 were cordial and they were
living a happy martial life. He further submitted that
the complainant used to give stolen gold articles and
etc., to the deceased to pledge it in her name and the
same was objected by the mother of the petitioner-
accused No.1 and many a times the pledged articles
were also got released by the petitioner-accused No.1.
He further submitted that the deceased was suffering
from pneumonia, cough and cold, because of that she
was intending to put an end to her life, in that light, the
petitioner-accused No.1 had consoled her many times
that it is not permanent life disease and it is curable
one. He further submitted that the deceased had
committed suicide only because of her health problems
and there was no demand for dowry and harassment.
He further submitted that the charge sheet has been
already filed and if petitioner-accused No.1 is enlarged
on bail, he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed
by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these
-6-
grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release him
on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court
Government Pleader, vehemently argued and submitted
that there is a prima-facie material as against the
petitioner-accused No.1 to show that he along with
other accused persons has ill-treated and harassed the
deceased for demand of dowry and the petitioner-
accused No.1 was addicted to alcohol and he has
already taken the amount and spent lavishly without
investing the same for the purpose for which it was
given. He further by drawing the attention of the Court
to the complaint submits that not only there was
demand for dowry even there was physical harassment
to the deceased. He further submitted that the
petitioner-accused No.1 has involved in a grave offence
under Section 302 of IPC which is punishable with
death or imprisonment for life. Under such
-7-
circumstances there are no good grounds to release him
on bail.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through
the contents of the complaint and other charge sheet
materials which has been produced along with the
petition. On going through the contents of the
complaint and other materials, it indicates that the
deceased used to tell her sister-in-law about the
physical ill-treatment and harassment which has been
caused and even the complaint itself clearly goes to
show that there was a grievous physical cruelty on the
deceased before her death. Though during the course of
the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the postmortem report does not specify
any injuries or scratches over the body of the deceased,
but that is a matter which has to be considered and
appreciated at the time of trial and that there is a
serious allegation against the petitioner-accused No.1
-8-
that he used to ill-treat and physically harass the
deceased for demand of dowry and the death has taken
place within seven years of the marriage. In the
matrimonial house under such circumstances, it is
petitioner-accused No.1 who has to explain under what
circumstances deceased committed suicide in his
house. Though during the course of argument it is
submitted that deceased was suffering with pneumonia,
etc., but that is a matter which has to consider at the
time of trial. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit
case to release the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail.
Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS/KTY.