1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10263/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SHANTHACHAR @ SHANTHAKUMAR,
S/O BHASKARACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
2. VEERACHAR HB@ SWAMY,
S/O BHASKARACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
BOTH PETITIONERS ARE
RESIDENTS OF NO.95/23,
VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
HANDARALLI MAIN ROAD,
PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
NEAR CHETAN CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 091.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.B.SWAMY, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY GANDASI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
2
HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.235/2017 OF GANDASI POLICE STATION,
HASSAN FOR THE OFFECE P/U/S 498(A) AND 304(B) R/W
34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his
release on bail of the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC, registered in
respondent – police station Crime No.235/2017. The
brother of the deceased is the complainant in this case.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State.
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners during
the course of his arguments has submitted that even
looking into the complaint averments there are no
serious allegations as against any of the accused
persons like they were demanding dowry amount or
giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased, the
only allegation is that they were telling her that she did
not know how to prepare food and how to do household
work, except that there is no other allegation against
them. He has further submitted that petitioners herein
are Carpenters by profession and they were not staying
along with the deceased in their village, they are staying
at Bengaluru. Hence, he submitted that the ingredients
of Section 304B are not at all complied with in this case,
no such offence has taken place. He has further
submitted that from the date of arrest, petitioners are in
custody, hence, they may be released on bail.
4
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader
opposed the petition contending that the incident took
place within two years from the date of marriage and it
is in the house of the petitioners herein, therefore, it is
the petitioners, who have to explain the circumstances
under which the incident took place. He has also
submitted that in the complaint there is an allegation
that petitioners made demand for dowry amount and for
that they arranged Rs.50,000/-, even though they have
given the amount at the time of marriage. He has
further submitted that the matter is under
investigation, hence, at this stage, petitioners are not
entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on
record.
5
6. The allegations are made in the complaint
that it is the petitioners along with other accused are
responsible for the death of the deceased. The matter is
still under investigation. Therefore, at this stage
without making any comments on the merits of the
case, petition is rejected with the liberty to the
petitioners to approach the concerned Court after
completion of investigation and filing of final report in
the matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR
