SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

[email protected] Ramesh And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2019

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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