SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Shankar J C @ Manu vs State Of Karnataka By on 15 June, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2879 OF 2018

BETWEEN:-

SHANKAR J C @ MANU
S/O CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
DRIVER BY PROFESSION,
R/A C.K.PALYA, JIGANI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562106.
… PETITIONER

(BY SRI: ARUN A GADAG, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BANNERGHATTA POLICE
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU -562106.
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-01
… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI: S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.2/2018 OF
BANNERGHATTA P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE
2

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 201,302,304B, 498A
R/W 34 OF IPC..

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioner is the husband of the deceased. Their

marriage was performed on 21.05.2017. On 16.12.2017, the

deceased was found hanging in the matrimonial home. The

father of the deceased lodged a report alleging that the

deceased was harassed and ill-treated in the matrimonial home

by the petitioner, his mother and sister. It is alleged that there

was demand for additional dowry and that she was asked to

attend to cooking which was resisted by the deceased and on

account of the said treatment, she was driven to commit suicide.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned HCGP. Learned HCGP has not filed any statement of

objections, but has orally opposed the petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

investigation having been completed, charges are framed under

Section 304-B as well as section 302 Indian Penal Code, which
3

cannot be reconciled with each other. There are no eye

witnesses to the incident. Therefore, there cannot be any

apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or

threatening any of the witnesses and hence, he seeks for release

of the petitioner on bail.

4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the deceased

died within seven months from the date of her marriage. She

was pursing her post-graduation. Though it is alleged that there

was dowry demand and cruelty to the deceased, no specific

instances of alleged dowry demand or cruelty are cited in the

charge sheet. The offence is alleged to have taken place in the

matrimonial home of the deceased. But, according to the

prosecution, on the date of the incident, the petitioner viz., the

husband was not in the house. The mother-in-law and sister-in-

law of the deceased were present in the house. But they are

dropped from the charge sheet. Even though the post-mortem

report mentions that the deceased died due to asphyxia as a

result of hanging, the findings recorded in the post mortem

report indicate that the deceased had sustained contusions on
4

the right cheek and further it is noted that the external injuries

found on the deceased were ante mortem in nature.

5. The complainant himself having alleged that the

petitioner was not present in the house on the date of the

incident, the external injuries found on the deceased cannot be

attributed to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, having

regard to the nature of the evidence relied on by the prosecution

in proof of the above charges, in my view, the custody of the

petitioner do not require to be extended any further. As the

prosecution has not cited any eyewitnesses to the incident

except the immediate relatives of the deceased, there cannot be

any apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence

or threatening the witnesses. Therefore, in the light of all these

facts and circumstances, petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

a) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on

furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for
5

the likesum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional court.

b) Petitioner shall appear before the court as and

when required.

c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the

prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

d) Petitioner shall not get involved in similar

offences.

e) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the

Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial

Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*mn/-

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 © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation