SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ravikumar vs State Of Karnataka on 7 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4073 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

RAVIKUMAR
S/O. VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O. GANAPATHIHALLI VILLAGE
TAVAREKERE HOBLI
RAMANAGARA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 101.
… PETITIONER

[BY SRI. BASAVARAJU T.A., ADVOCATE]

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TAVARAKERE POLICE
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
PUBLIC PROSECUTORS OFFICE
AT HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
AT BANGALORE-560 001.
RESPONDENT

[BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP]

***
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.279/2020 OF TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT, (PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA IN SC NO.3/2021), FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B, 306 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF
IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT,

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by

petitioner/accused No.1 praying to enlarge him on bail in

connection with a case registered in Crime No.279/2020 of

Tavarekere Police Station, Ramanagara District, for offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 34

of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned

HCGP for respondent-State and perused the material on record.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the

petitioner/accused No.1 married Smt. Sharada (deceased) at

Kempamma Devi Samudaya Bhavana on 27.06.2019. At the time

of marriage, one gold ring and a gold chain was received as
3

dowry. After the marriage, the deceased started staying in her

matrimonial house along with accused Nos.1 to 3 at

Ganapathihalli Village. The accused were giving physical and

mental torture to the deceased, demanding her to bring

additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- from her parental house. Unable

to bear the said torture, on 06.09.2020, during night hours, she

committed suicide by hanging.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that

the petitioner has not demanded or accepted any dowry at the

time of marriage. The petitioner is innocent and he has not

committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The

deceased was not interested to give birth and in this regard,

some quarrel had taken place and apart from that the petitioner

has not subjected the deceased to cruelty either physically or

mentally. He further contends that the deceased was suffering

from stomach pain and the reason for her to commit suicide is

not within the knowledge of the petitioner. He submits that

accused Nos.2 and 3 are already enlarged on bail. Now the

investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. The

petitioner is languishing in judicial custody. He submits that the
4

petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that

may be imposed by this court. Accordingly, seeks to allow the

petition.

5. Learned HCGP has opposed grant of bail contending

that the petitioner has demanded and accepted the dowry at the

time of marriage and all the accused were subjecting the

deceased to cruelty in connection with dowry and they were

demanding Rs.50,000/-. Unable to bear the physical and mental

torture meted to her, she has committed suicide. He contends

that the deceased has committed suicide within seven years from

the date of marriage and in view of the material on record, the

petitioner has committed dowry death. Therefore, he contends

that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief he has sought for.

Accordingly, seeks to reject the petition.

6. The marriage of the deceased with the petitioner

took place on 27.06.2019. It is the case of the prosecution that

at the time of marriage, a gold ring and a gold chain was given

to the accused-petitioner. The complaint is lodged by the elder

brother of the deceased. It is not alleged that at the time of
5

marriage, the petitioner demanded any dowry. As per the

complaint averments, a gold ring and a gold chain were given to

the groom and for some time, the deceased was looked after

properly. About a year prior to the incident in question, there

was an abortion and thereafter all the accused started quarrelling

with the deceased in connection with dowry, which was being

informed by the deceased to the complainant. As per the post

mortem report, the death is on account of asphyxia as a result of

hanging. It is alleged that all the accused persons were insisting

the deceased to bring a sum of Rs.50,000/- from her parental

house. At this stage, there is no material to hold that there was

any cruelty meted to the deceased soon before her death. Except

the ligature mark, no other injuries are noticed on the dead

body. The prosecution has to establish its case in a full fledged

trial. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.09.2020. Now

the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed.

Accused Nos.2 and 3, the mother and aunt of the petitioner have

been enlarged on bail. Hence, by imposing conditions, the relief

sought by the petitioner can be granted. Hence, the following :
6

ORDER

Criminal petition is allowed.

Petitioner – Accused No.1 shall be enlarged on bail in

Crime No.279/2020 of Tavarekere Police Station, Bengaluru, for

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 306 read

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, subject

to following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two

sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional court.

(ii) Petitioner shall furnish proof of his residential

address and shall inform the court if there is any

change in the address.

(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution

witnesses / evidence either directly or indirectly.

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial

court without prior permission of the learned

Sessions Judge.

7

(v) Petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all

dates of hearing.

Observations made herein above shall be confined to the

disposal of this bail petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE

snc

Leave a Reply

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

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