1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10304/2017
BETWEEN
N. MUNIRAJU
S/O NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT NAGENAHALLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 573 116
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. Y.R.SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. SHANKAR T.N., ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNARAYAPATNA
POLICE STATION
BENGALURU DISTRICT – 573 116
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU – 560 001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.119/2017 OF
CHENNARAYAPATANA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B R/W
34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused
No.1 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his
release on bail for the alleged offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B R/W 34 of IPC and Section 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in the respondent-
police Crime No.119/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that
complainant who is the mother of the deceased alleged
that she is residing at the address mentioned in the
complaint. About 1½ years back, her daughter
3
Chandrakala was given to the accused No.1 and
performed the marriage at the house of accused No.1
and given dowry of Rs.One Lakh. As a gift also given
one golden ring, one neck chain to accused No.1 and
one gold necklace, ear studs, one pair of hangings was
given to her daughter while performing the marriage
and they have tortured her daughter both physically
and mentally. With regard to the same panchayath was
conducted. Then accused No.1 has assaulted upon the
complainant and her daughter. Even though it was
decided in the panchayath, they sent her daughter to
the matrimonial home. That on 14.11.2017 in the
morning at about 10.00 AM with regard to bring further
dowry from her parental home, the accused No.1 and
petitioners colluded with each other and forcibly made
the daughter of the complainant to consume poison and
complainant’s daughter called over to the complainant’s
mobile phone and informed that she was admitted to
4
Government Hospital at Devanahalli. Then the
complaint arrived at the Government Hospital at
Devanahalli and found that her daughter was alone.
Then the complainant called over phone to her son-in-
law, but he did not received the phone call. For further
medical treatment she was shifted to Chickkaballapura
Government Hospital and further to Victoria Hospital.
But due to the failure in the treatment her daughter
succumbed to death. On the basis of the said
complaint, a case came to be registered against the
petitioner and other members of the family.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned Sr.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the counsel appearing
for the petitioner who made the submission that false
allegations are made against the petitioner. He never
ill-treated the deceased nor he administered the poison
to the deceased. It is also submitted that as on the date
5
of alleged incident, at the relevant point of time, he was
on duty. Hence learned sr. Counsel also raised the plea
of alibi so far as the argument of the petitioner is
concerned. Hence he made the submission that as
there is no prima facie case made out against the
petitioner, by imposing reasonable conditions, he may
be admitted to regular bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP made the
submission that by looking to the complaint averments,
there are allegations regarding the ill-treatment and
harassment meted out to the deceased by the
petitioners and other family members. There is also
allegation in the complaint that her daughter was
administered poison forcibly by the petitioner and other
members of the family. He submitted that the Post
Mortem Report supports the case of the prosecution and
it is consistent. He also draws the attention of this
6
court to the medical records and the history furnished
by the very deceased herself. Wherein also it is stated
that there was an ill-treatment from her family
members. Hence, he submitted the materials on record,
at this stage prima facie goes to show the involvement of
the petitioner in committing the alleged offences and he
is not entitled for bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by
the court below rejecting the bail petition filed by the
petitioner.
6. There are allegations in the complaint about
the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased and as per
the complaint averments, the mother has stated in the
complaint that her daughter used to inform her about
ill-treatment given by the petitioner and his family
members and accordingly, she informed about the
7
forcible administration of the poison to her by petitioner
and other members of the family. The Post Mortem
Report and the opinion of the doctor regarding the
cause of death also goes to show that it is a case of
consumption of poison therefore, there is a consistency
in the medical opinion as well as the averments made
in the complaint. The history before the doctor at the
time of admission of the deceased is concerned, there is
also mentioning that there was ill-treatment by her
husband, bother-in-law and family members. This also
supports the prosecution case regarding the ill-
treatment and harassment at this stage. No doubt,
learned Senior Counsel raised the contention that the
petitioner was not at all present at the place, hence he
pleaded the benefit of alibi.
7. So far as the plea of alibi is concerned this
has to be taken by way of defence during the course of
8
trial because prosecution must also be given an
opportunity to testify the materials on the basis of the
materials on which the plea is raised on behalf of the
accused person.
8. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I
am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for grant of
bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby
rejected.
However, liberty is given to the petitioner that
after the completion of investigation and filing of the
charge sheet, he can approach the court for grant of
bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bsv