IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.651/2018
Aged about 29 years,
Receptionist at Durga Siri
R/o Bank Colony,
Near the house of Ex-MLA Basavanna,
Chitradurga City – 577 501.
(By Sri Jayaprakash K N, Advocate)
The State of Karnataka by
Malebennur Police Station,
Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District.
(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Crime No.156/2017 of Malebennur Police Station,
Davangere District for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and etc.
This criminal petition coming on for orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
Heard the petitioner’s counsel and learned High
Court Government Pleader.
2. This is a petition under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime
No.156/2017 registered at respondent-police station for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306,
304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4
of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. The petitioner is the husband of the
deceased-Yashoda. Their marriage took place at
Davangere on 02.03.2017. In the complaint, it is stated
that, at the time of marriage, dowry in the form of gold,
silver and cash were given to the petitioner and even
after the marriage, deceased was being harassed for
additional dowry in the form of cash of Rs.1 lakh. Being
unable to bear the torture, the deceased went to her
parents house and committed suicide on 03.07.2017.
4. Petitioner’s counsel argues that the
investigation has been completed. From the statement
of the witnesses it cannot be made out that there was a
demand for dowry after the marriage. The deceased was
said to have left a death note according to which the
reason for suicide can be said to be relationship of the
petitioner with a girl by name Pavithra. If really,
deceased was subjected to harassment in connection
with dowry, the death note would have contained
allegation to that effect. Therefore, the truth in the
chargesheet becomes doubtful. Further he argues that
at best, the entire incident can be brought within the
ambit of Section 306 of IPC and nothing more. The
petitioner has been in custody for quite a long time and
since there are no prima-facie materials, petitioner can
be admitted to bail.
5. Learned HCGP opposes the application for
grant of bail.
6. On perusing the statements of the witnesses
examined by the Investigating Officer, it becomes clear
that most of them are the relatives of deceased. More
important is the death note which does not say
anything about dowry harassment. All that it says is
with regard to relationship between this petitioner and
another girl Pavithra who is arrayed as accused No.3.
Therefore, the registration of the complaint for the
offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B has to
be doubted. The petitioner has been in custody for quite
a long time. Investigation is over and therefore, there is
no impediment for admitting the petitioner on bail.
Hence, the following:
Petition is allowed.
Petitioner shall be released on bail on obtaining
from him bond for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)
and a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
trial Court. The petitioner is subjected to the following
1) He shall regularly appear before the Court
2) He shall not threaten the witness and
tamper the prosecution evidence.