1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8571/2017
BETWEEN:
RAJESH
S/O LATE SRINIVAS,
27 YEARS, NO.1315, 7TH CROSS,
5TH MAIN, TRIVENI ROAD,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION,
YESHWANTHAPURA,
BENGALURU-560 022.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.331/2017 OF YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 304B, 498A R/W
34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
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 alleged offences punishable under Sections
498-A, 304-B r/w 34 of IPC registered in respondent
police station Crime No.331/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that
the father of the deceased lodged the complaint before
the Sub-Inspector of Yeshwanthapura police station
alleging that he performed the marriage of his daughter,
Chandrika with the petitioner on 13.12.2015 and at the
time of marriage he gave the petitioner a chain, ring and
Rs.2 lakhs, so also mangalya chain, necklace and chain
to his daughter. The couple have a son. After marriage,
for about two months petitioner was looking after the
deceased well and thereafter started ill treating her for
dowry amount. The deceased used to tell the
complainant about that and he used to advice her to
adjust and lead her life. Panchayats were held in that
3
regard and despite that the petitioner used to ill treat
her. Two months prior to the death of the deceased,
petitioner and deceased set up a separate house and
there also harassment continued. The complainant
stated that on 21.8.2017 at 2 a.m., the brother of the
petitioner informed him over phone that his daughter
was admitted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital and required
him to go to said hospital. On the basis of the said
complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged
offences against the petitioner herein.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State.
4. I have perused the averments made in the
bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed
on record.
4
5. Counsel for the petitioner made the statement
that prosecution material will not make out a case for
the alleged offence under Section 498-A, 304-B of IPC.
Learned counsel submitted that false allegations are
made against the petitioner to falsely implicate him in
this case. He made the submission that at no point of
time the present petitioner demanded dowry from the
deceased. He never subjected her to any sort of ill
treatment or harassment. Counsel further made the
submission that now the investigation is completed and
charge sheet is also filed. The alleged offences are not
exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for
life. Hence, learned counsel submitted to allow the
petition and release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP made the
submission that looking to the complaint averments,
there are allegations that the petitioner was demanding
and insisting the deceased to bring the dowry amount
from her parental place and he used to ill treat her both
5
mentally and physically. He also made the submission
that looking to the complaint averments, it goes to show
that the deceased and present petitioner were living
together separately in a house. Hence, the burden is
cast on the petitioner to explain under what
circumstances the alleged incident took place. He also
made the submission that during investigation, the
Investigating Officer collected the statement of witnesses
and those witnesses have also stated about the ill
treatment and harassment meted out by the deceased
at the hands of the petitioner. Hence, he submitted that
petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
7. Looking to the complaint averments filed by the
father of the deceased, it is evident that there are
allegations with regard to demand for dowry and in
connection with the said dowry amount, the present
petitioner used to ill treat and harass the deceased. It is
also stated that in relation to this ill treatment and
harassment is concerned, the deceased used to tell her
6
father and father was advising her to adjust and lead
her life. Therefore, this statement made in the
complaint at this stage to be considered as statement of
the deceased made before her father regarding ill
treatment and harassment, which is also relevant piece
of evidence during the course of trial as oral drying
declaration by the deceased to her father. The materials
also go to show that the petitioner and deceased only
were staying in a separate house and the death took
place within seven years from the date of marriage.
Regarding ill treatment and harassment to which the
deceased was subjected to, there are prima facie
material placed by the prosecution. Looking to these
materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that it is
not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
During the course of hearing of the petition,
learned counsel for the petitioner also made the
7
submission that charge sheet was not filed within 90
days, but it is filed on 92nd day of the alleged incident.
If that is so, petitioner to move an application invoking
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. claiming default bail. In case,
if such an application is filed, the concerned Court is
directed to dispose of the same on merits at the earliest.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ln.