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