SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Charan Raj @ Charan @ Chetan vs State Of Karnataka on 19 September, 2019








Sri. Charan Raj
@ Charan @ Chetan,
S/o Sri. Govindaraju,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at 4th Cross,
Mahalakshmi Badavane,
Tumakuru Town,
Tumkuru-572 101.
(By Sri. B.K.Arun, Advocate)


State of Karnataka
Through the Deputy
Superintendent of Police,
Tumkuru Town Women
Police Station,
Tumkuru-572 101,
Represented by the learned Special
Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.41/2019 of Women Police Station, Tumakuru for
the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, Section304-B read
with Section 34 of IPC 1860 and Section 3 and Section4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

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


Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the


2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in the

charge-sheet filed by the respondent-Police which is later

culminated into SC.No.104/2019 on the file of learned

Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, for the offence punishable

under Sections 304-B, Section498A read with Section 34 of IPC

and Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The factual matrix that discloses from the

charge sheet papers are that accused No.1 and deceased-

Srilakshmi loved each other and married on 21.09.2016

by way of Register Marriage in the Sub-Registrar Office at

Tumakur. After coming to know about the Register

Marriage, the family members of both families performed

their marriage at Srilakshmi Temple, Goravanahalli.

4. It is alleged that for a period of three to four

months, petitioner and deceased lived happily. Thereafter,

petitioner who was running a Studio, suffered loss to an

extent of Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/-. Therefore, the

petitioner and his family members started demanding of

dowry from deceased and her family members. It is alleged

that in spite of giving some amount on various occasions,

they did not desist themselves and demanded for further

dowry. On 13.04.2019 being frustrated in life, Srilakshmi

committed suicide by hanging herself in the matrimonial


5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

there is no material to show that soon before the death of

the deceased there was any ill-treatment or harassment

for demand of dowry. Further, no materials have been

collected by the prosecution to show that there was any

financial crisis to the family of the petitioner and there is

no material to establish that after the marriage any

amount has been paid to the petitioner. Of course, above

said factors though stated in the charge-sheet, have to be

established during the course of full fledged trial. In the

matrimonial matters, the conduct of the husband and

wife, their sensitivity, family circumstances and

environment, everything has to be taken into

consideration by the Court in order to ascertain whether

there was any such cruelty which is sufficient to drive a

woman to commit suicide or not and those factors have to

be established in the trial.

6. In the above said circumstances, in my

opinion, the petitioner-accused No.1 is entitled to be

enlarged on bail as the offence is exclusively punishable

either with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, the



The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner-

accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with

S.C.No.104/2019 (arising out of Cr.No.41/2019) on the

file of learned Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, registered for

the offence punishable under Sections 304-B, Section498A read

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(One Lakh
only) with one surety for the like-sum to the
satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering
the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the
jurisdictional court on all the future hearing
dates unless exempted by the court for any
genuine cause.


(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior
permission of the court till the case registered
against him is disposed of.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation