SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prakash vs State By on 10 March, 2014

Karnataka High Court Prakash vs State By on 10 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.1130/2014

BETWEEN:

Prakash,

Aged about 28 years,

S/o. Mudligowda,

R/at Rayasamudra Village,

K.R. Pet Taluk,

Mandya District

Pin-571 426. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy, Adv.) AND:

State by:

Kengeri Police,

Bangalore,

Represented by S.P.P.,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.20371/2013 on the file of F.T.C.-XIII, Bangalore and Cr. No.302/2013 of Kengeri P.S., Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

2

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.302/2013.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other charge sheet materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by the lower court on the bail application.

4. Looking to the averments in the complaint it indicates that at the time of marriage of the deceased with the present petitioner, 100 gms. of gold articles and Rs.1.50 3

lakh dowry was given to the father of the petitioner and for the performance of the marriage, Rs.3.00 lakh was spent by selling 1½ acre of the property. Immediately, after the marriage, the petitioner took rented house and he was staying along with the deceased. His mother was also staying with them for some time. Since from the date of marriage, the petitioner and his mother were harassing the deceased in connection with the more dowry. The same was informed by the deceased to her parents over phone. It is also mentioned in the complaint that the reason for death of their daughter was due to harassment meted out by the petitioner and his mother.

5. I have perused the statement of the father of the victim and the statement of relatives of the victim recorded by the investigating officer during investigation. In their statement, they have stated about the ill treatment and harassment given by the petitioner to the deceased in connection with the demand for dowry amount. The death has taken place within sixteen months from the date of marriage of the deceased with the present petitioner. It has 4

taken place when the deceased was leading her marital life in the petitioner’s house. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, prima facie, the prosecution has made out a case about the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner. The petitioner being the husband of the deceased is also responsible and accounted for the death of the deceased. When such a serious allegation is made that the death of the deceased is due to ill treatment and harassment by the petitioner and as there is also initial presumption in law under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act about the dowry death and the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the said offence, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected. Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs/-

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