1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8783 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
NAVEEN KUMAR G V
S/O LATE VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.14, 2ND CROSS
OLD BANK COLONY, KONANAKUNTE,
BENGALURU-560 062. ..PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RADHIKA M, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. PADMAVATHI N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY KONANAKUNTE POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY-560 062.
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001. ….RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.215
OF 2019 (C.C.NO.24685/2019) OF KONANAKUNTE P.S.,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 304B, 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3,4 OF
D.P.ACT.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned HCGP has not filed statement of objections but
has orally opposed the petition.
3. Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
Investigation is completed and charge sheet is laid against the
petitioner and two others under Sections 498A, 304B r/w.34 of
IPC and 3 and 4 of DP Act.
4. The case of the prosecution is that marriage between 5.
the petitioner and the deceased was performed on 9.6.2012.
She stayed with the petitioner for about 20 days and thereafter
went to her parents house for Ashada. On 30.6.2012 she came
back to the matrimonial house to write her examination. On
31.7.2012, after writing the examination, she is stated to have
committed suicide by hanging in the house of the petitioner.
3
5. Though there are allegations that the petitioner herein
was harassing and ill-treating the deceased making demand for
additional dowry, yet the statements produced along the with
charge sheet disclose that the deceased herself had reported to
her sister that her husband viz. the petitioner herein had
suffered a stroke and suppressing this fact, he had married her
and as such, she found it incompatible to live with the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the above facts and having regard to
the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, in my
view, custody of the petitioner is not required to be extended
any further. Allegations made against the petitioner are required
to be substantiated by the testimony of the witnesses who are
closely related to the deceased and hence, there cannot be any
apprehension of the petitioner tampering the evidence or
prevailing upon the material witnesses. In that view of the
matter, the petition deserves to be allowed.
4
7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
a) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakh only) with two sureties for
the likesum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional court.
b) Petitioner shall appear before the court as and
when required.
c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the
prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) Petitioner shall not get involved in similar
offences.
e) Petitioner shall not leave the territorial limits of
the Trial Court without prior permission of the
Trial Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rs
