SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Mr Prabhakar @ Uday vs State By Sho on 19 September, 2018







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, )

State by SHO,
Mico Layout P.S,
Rep. by SPP,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP)

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:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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.




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