IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9169/2018

BETWEEN:
Sri. Champak,
S/o Venkateshappa,
Aged about 32 years,
Working as Human Resource Manager,
S.S. Manpower, Whitefield Road,
Hoodi, Bengaluru – 560 045.

R/at Dimbha Gate,
Kolar Taluk – 563 130.
…Petitioner
(By Sri. M.R. Nanjundagowda, Advocate)

AND:
The State of Karnataka,
By Bangarpet Police,
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
… Respondent
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh, B.G., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No250/2018 of Bangarpet Police Station, K.G.F. District
for the offences p/u/ss 498A, 302, 304B, 504 read with
Section 34 of IPC.
-2-

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the

petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.,

seeking his release on bail in Crime No.250/2018 of

Bangarpet Police Station for the offences punishable

under Sections 498(A), 302, 304(B) and 504 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent-State.

3. The genesis of the complaint is that the

marriage of the deceased was solemnized with accused

No.1 on 04.03.2018, at that time, the complainant gave

some gold ornaments. Subsequently, accused No.1 and

in-laws of the deceased started ill-treatment and

harassment to the deceased to bring Rs.3 lakhs from
-3-

her parents to get a house on lease at Bengaluru and to

reside in Bengaluru. The matter was pacified by

holding the panchayath on 27.06.2018. On 29.06.2018

at about 11.00 a.m., accused No.1 made a phone call to

the complainant and told that his wife has fell down and

she was taken to R.K. Nursing Home at Kolar.

Immediately, the complainant went to the hospital and

noticed that the deceased died and there was

strangulation mark around the neck and suspected that

the accused persons have committed murder of the

deceased by using rope or cloth. On the basis of the

complaint, a case has been registered.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that accused Nos.2 to 5 have already

been released on bail and at the time of filing the charge

sheet, accused Nos.4 and 5 have been dropped out. It

is further submitted that there was no demand of dowry

by the accused petitioner or from his family members.
-4-

It is further submitted that the contents of the

complaint and other material contains the common

allegation against all the accused persons. Under the

similar facts and circumstance, accused Nos.2 and 3

have been released on bail. On the ground of parity, the

petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. He

further submitted that already the charge sheet has

been filed and the custodial continuation of the

petitioner is not necessary. He further submitted that if

the nature and gravity of the accusation and the role

played by the accused is properly assessed, at the time

of alleged incident accused No.1 was not present at the

place of incident and as such, no attribution can be

made against the petitioner/accused No.1. He submits

that he is ready to abide by the conditions that may be

imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety.

On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to

release the petitioner/accused on bail.
-5-

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that at the

time of performing the marriage, they have given the

dowry in the form of gold and two days prior to the

alleged incident, the matter has been pacified before the

panchas. The deceased has been murdered within four

years from the date of the marriage that there is a

presumption under the said act that it is a dowry death.

She further submitted that immediately after the

incident, accused No.2 went and CWs.2 and 4 have

come and have seen that the deceased was suffering

with suffocation and immediately, she was shifted to the

hospital. It is further submitted that there is prima-

facie material against the accused petitioner. She

further submitted that the final opinion of the Medical

Officer has to be obtained, if the accused petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail, he may tamper with the

prosecution evidence and may not be available for trial.

On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
-6-

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing

for both the parties and perused the records which has

been produced along with the petition.

7. As could be seen from the contents of

complaint there is common allegation with regard to the

ill-treatment and harassment for demand of Rs.3 lakhs

from the deceased. Under the said common allegation,

already accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been released

on bail. On the ground of parity, accused petitioner is

also entitled to be released on bail. Be that as it may.

The records indicate that nowhere it is mentioned that

the presence of accused on the date of the alleged

incident and it has been mentioned that he has come

when the deceased was taken to the hospital. Under

such circumstance, there is no serious overt-acts

alleged against petitioner/accused No.1. That too,

already when the charge sheet is filed, I feel that by
-7-

imposing some stringent conditions, if the accused

petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to

meet the ends of justice. In the light of discussions held

by me above, petition is allowed.

8. Petitioner/accused No.1 is enlarged on bail

in Crime No.250/2018 of Bangarpet Police Station for

the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302,

304(B) and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to

the following conditions:

1. Petitioner/accused No.1 shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two
lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.

2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court
without prior permission.

3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
directly or indirectly.

4. He shall regularly appear before the Court for trial.

Sd/-

JUDGE
VBS