Karnataka High Court Smt. Lakshmi vs The State By Hanumanthanagara … on 4 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.857/2014
1. Smt. Lakshmi,
W/o. Mr. Adinarayana Shetty,
Aged 65 years,
2. Sri. Adhinarayana Shetty,
S/o. Mr. Sanjeevaiah Shetty,
Aged about 70 years,
Both are R/at No.4/58,
1st ‘A’ Cross,
BSK I Stage,
Bangalore-560 050. .. PETITIONERS (By Sri. B. Keshava Murthy, Adv.)
The State by
Hanumanthanagar Police Station,
Bangalore-560 050. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr. No.355/2013 of Hanumanthanagara 2
P.S., Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 R/W 34 of IPC and Secs. 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.355/2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Sowmya lodged a complaint alleging that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed on 2.11.2011 and at the time of marriage, accused No.1 was paid dowry amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and jewels. Both the complainant and accused No.1 were living together. Thereafter, the present petitioners along with her husband-accused No.1 and his sister started ill treating her and demanding more dowry amount from her. On account 3
of ill treatment, the complainant left the matrimonial home during May, 2012. Even after several meetings, they have not taken back the complainant to matrimonial house. Hence, she filed a complaint against the petitioners and her husband for the alleged offence.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments, submitted that though the allegations are that the petitioners demanded dowry and because of that reason, the complainant left matrimonial house in May, 2012, after lapse of six months, the present complaint has been filed. It is submitted that the petitioners are in-laws of the complainant. The petitioners never ill treated the complainant and never demanded dowry from her. The petitioners are not at all residing with accused No.1 and the complainant and they are residing separately. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to bail. 4
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the averments made in the complaint and also the statement of other witnesses, it clearly goes to show that the petitioners along with accused No.1 gave ill treatment to the complainant and demanded more dowry amount from the complainant. Hence, he submitted that there is prima facie material against the petitioners also and they are not entitled for grant of bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record. Looking to the averments in the complaint, it is contended by the complainant that her in-laws and her husband tortured and demanded for more dowry. Because of that reason, she left matrimonial house during May, 2012. In spite of that, she has not filed complaint immediately. Only after lapse of six months, she filed a complaint against the petitioners and her husband. Looking to the averments in the bail petition, it is contended by the petitioners that they 5
never ill treated and demanded for more dowry from the complainant. They have been falsely implicated in the case. The offences triable by the Court of Magistrate and they are not punishable for death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners can be released on bail.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in Crime No. 355/2013, subject to the following conditions:
I. Each petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and shall offer one surety for the likesum to the concerned Magistrate Court.
II. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so. III. The petitioners shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. 6
IV. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.