1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200312/2019
BETWEEN:
1. Ramachandra @ Ramesh
S/o Bhimappa Doddamani
Age: 24 Years, Occ: Driver
2. Bhimappa S/o Hanamappa Doddamani
Age: 50 Years, Occ: Coolie
3. Basawwa W/o Bhimappa Doddamani
Age: 45 Years, Occ: Coolie
All are R/o Malnoor village
Tq. Hunasagi, Dist.Yadgiri-585215
– Petitioners
(By Sri Santosh Patil, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through Hunasagi Police Station
Tq. Hunasagi, Dist. Yadagiri
Rep. by the Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Kalaburagi Bench-585105
– Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to allow the bail petition
and release the petitioners on bail in Crime No.190/2018 of
Hunasagi Police Station in Sessions Case No.01/2019,
pending on the file of Sessions Judge at Yadagiri for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498A, 304B,
306 R/w Section 149 of IPC and offences punishable under
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This bail petition is filed by the petitioners/
accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in
connection with Crime No.190/2018 of Hunasagi Police
Station, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 143, 147, 498A, 304B, 306 R/w Section 149 of
IPC and offences under sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Since from the date of the arrest,
petitioners are in judicial custody. Therefore, the
learned counsel prays for enlarging the accused on bail
among the grounds urged therein.
3
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners as well as learned High Court Government
Pleader for the State and perused the records.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
It is evident from the complaint that the marriage of the
deceased-Prema was performed with the petitioner
No.1-Ramachandra @ Ramesh. After the marriage, for
about 2-3 months they lead happy married life.
Subsequently, petitioner No.1 started giving physical as
well mental harassment to her by insisting her to bring
two tolas of gold jewelry, same was informed by the
deceased to the complainant and her parents, who
consoled the Prema by visiting her matrimonial home.
Such being the position, on the last day of Moharam
festival, the deceased-Prema did not come to her
parental house. Therefore, they searched for her, but
on 22.09.2018, the dead body of Prema was found near
the canal of Kembhavi gate. It is further stated in the
4
complaint that on 21.09.2018 in between 4.30 p.m. and
5.30 p.m., deceased-Prema went near the Kembhavi
canal for the purpose of washing the clothes and she
drowned in the said canal for being not tolerating the
harassment meted out by her husband as well as in-
laws’ i.e., petitioners herein. Therefore, the accused are
responsible for the death of Prema. In pursuance of the
act of the accused, a case in Crime No.190/2018 came
to be registered by the complainant, said to be paternal
uncle of the deceased.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners taken me
through the averments made in the complaint as well as
FIR and submits that petitioner No.1 is the husband
and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the
deceased and that there is a delay of two days in lodging
the complaint. The petitioners have been falsely
implicated in the alleged crime and there is no direct
overt-act attributed against the petitioners to indicate
5
that they have given physical as well as mental
harassment to the deceased-Prema, which lead her to
die by felling into the water canal near the Kembhavi
gate. Further contended that the contents found in the
FIR as well as in the charge sheet laid against the
accused do not constitute offence under Section 304B of
IPC as well as Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act. It is further contended that accused No.3 is said to
be the womenfolk and a psychiatric patient she required
constant treatment, if not herself committing some
injury, lead also by tearing the clothes. Petitioners are
hail from respectable family having respect in the eye of
the society, moreover they are ready to abide by any
conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting
bail to them. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners prays for enlarging the petitioner on
regular bail.
6
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for the State has taken me through the
averments made in the complaint and contends that the
marriage of the deceased-Prema was performed with the
petitioner No.1-Ramachandra @ Ramesh and thereafter
she lead happy life only 2-3 months. Subsequently,
petitioner No.1 began to give physical as well mental
harassment to her by insisting her to bring two tolas of
gold jewelry, same was informed by the deceased to the
complainant as such her parents, who consoled her by
visiting her matrimonial home, but due to the
depression deceased lost her breath that too be within a
span of seven years from the date of her marriage.
Therefore, if the accused are supposed to be released on
bail, certainly there shall be an adverse impact on the
society, therefore petitioners are not deserving for bail,
these are all the contentions taken by the learned High
Court Government Pleader for the State and seeking
dismissal of the bail petition.
7
6. In these context taken by the learned counsel for
the petitioners as well as learned High Court
Government Pleader for the State relating to the Crime
No.190/2018, it can be seen that a charge sheet against
the accused in C.C.No.702/2018 came to filed stating
that marriage of the deceased-Prema performed along
with petitioner No.1/accused No.1-Ramachandra @
Ramesh and she lead a happy life only 2-3 months.
Subsequently, petitioners and other accused began to
give physical as well mental harassment to her by
insisting her to bring two tolas of gold jewelry as dowry.
As such, complainant as well as her parents of the
deceased went to the matrimonial home of her and
consoled her, despite of it Prema went under
depression, on 21.09.2018 at about 4.30 p.m. she had
been to the Kehmbhavi canal for the purpose of washing
the clothes and she drowned into the canal, due to
harassment meted out by the petitioners. The
8
investigation officer thoroughly done investigation and
laid the charge-sheet. However, learned High Court
Government Pleader submits that if the petitioners are
supposed to be released on bail, there shall be an
adverse impact on the society. Keeping in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case as opined that there
is prima facie material against petitioner No.1-
Ramachandra @ Ramesh, being her husband in
committing the alleged offence, he is not deserving for
bail. But, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are the in-laws of
the deceased-Prema are entitled for bail. The
apprehension expressed by the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the State could be curtailed by
imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of
the prosecution insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are
concerned. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order;
9
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner Nos.2 and 3
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.
Insofar as the petition of the petitioner
No.1/accused No.1 is hereby rejected.
1. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall execute their
personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each
with one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the Court where the case in
S.C.No.1/2019 is pending;
2. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not hamper or
tamper the prosecution witnesses;
3. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not indulge in
any criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 violate any of the
conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands
cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BL
