1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4412/2018
BETWEEN:
MR RAJENDRA GOWDA
S/O B.H.G.GOUDAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PRESENT ADDRESS NO.7185,
SOBHA FOREST VIEW,
KANAKAPUR ROAD,
BANGALORE – 560 062.
OLD ADDRESS
NO.1102, 11TH FLOOR, D-03 FLAT,
SOUTH CITY, J.P.NAGAR,
BANGALORE – 560 078.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI CHETAN B.ANGADI, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THE VIJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.271/2016
(C.C.NO.26099/2017) OF VIJAYANAGAR P.S.,
BANGALOLRE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 504,
506, 304, 201, 498A R/W 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime
No.271/2016.
2. Initially, the case was registered against the
petitioner under Section 498A of IPC, based on the
complaint lodged by the father of deceased alleging that
the deceased was subjected to cruelty and ill-treatment
by the petitioner herein in the matrimonial home, which
led to her untimely death on 21.02.2016. During
investigation, the Investigating Officer made an
application to the jurisdictional Court to incorporate
Section 306 of IPC, but in view of the statement of the
3
witnesses, charge sheet is laid against the petitioner
under Section 304 of IPC.
3. The application moved by the petitioner before
the trial Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., has been
rejected mainly on the ground that the investigating
agency has collected prima facie material in proof of the
offence under Section 304 of IPC.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing
for the respondent-State.
5. The learned HCGP has not filed any statement
of objections in spite of granting sufficient opportunity.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken
me through the records, which indicate that the
petitioner and the deceased were married for 4 years. In
the wedlock, the deceased had begotten a girl child. The
4
deceased developed viral fever on 02.02.2016 and she
was admitted to Fortis Hospital. The medical records
indicate that the deceased died due to multi-organ
failure on 21.02.2016. The records also indicate that
subsequent to the death of the deceased, there were
dispute between the petitioner and the parents of the
deceased regarding the custody of the minor daughter.
Proceedings were initiated under the provisions of the
Guardian and Wards Act. That being the case, on
24.05.2016 three months after the death, the father of
the deceased alleged cruelty to the deceased by making
a complaint before the respondent-Police and hence,
initially the FIR was registered under Section 498A of
IPC. It is stated that the petitioner had obtained
anticipatory bail in the said offence. It is also submitted
that accused Nos.2 to 9 are admitted to anticipatory bail
by the Sessions Court.
5
7. In view of the submission of the charge sheet
under Section 304 of IPC, the only aspect that requires
to be considered is whether the material on record make
out the offence under Section 304 of IPC? In this
regard, it is noticed that the medical records clearly
indicate that the deceased was treated in the hospital as
inpatient for about 21 days immediately prior to the
death and she died in the hospital on account of multi-
organ failure. As on that day, there were no allegations
attracting the offence under Section 498A or 304 of IPC.
It is only after the initiation of the proceedings for the
custody of the child, the allegation attracting the
criminal offence appears to have surfaced. The records
also do not indicate any cruelty to the deceased by the
petitioner herein during her lifetime.
8. Taking into consideration all the above facts
and circumstances, the petitioner is required to be
admitted to anticipatory bail. Moreover, the petitioner
6
had the benefit of anticipatory bail in
Crl.P.No.803/2017 dated 26.07.2017. The later
insertion of additional offence cannot have the effect of
canceling the earlier bail.
9. In view of the above legal and factual position,
the petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is
directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court within
15 days from the date of this order and on his
appearance, he shall be enlarged on bail subject to the
following conditions:-
a. Petitioner shall furnish a bond in a
sum of Rs.1,00,000 lakh (Rupees One
lakh only) with two sureties for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court;
7
b. The petitioner shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court as and when
required; andc. The petitioner shall not threaten or
allure the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PB
