IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4960/2018

BETWEEN:

Sri. Govindaswamy N.
S/o. Naganna,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at Bommenahally
Village, Chitradurga Taluk,
Chitradurga District – 577 501. ..Petitioner

(By Sri. Harish N.R., Advocate for
Sri.B.M. Siddappa, Advocate)

AND:
State of Karnataka
Represented its
State Public Prosecutor
High Court Buildings,
Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in
Crime No.284/2014 (S.C.No.98/2014) of Chitradurga
Rural Police Station, Chitradurga, for the offence P/U/S
498A, 304B, 302 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 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to allow the petition and release the

petitioner on bail in S.C.No.98/2014 pending on the file

of the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Chitradurga for the offences punishable under Sections

498(A), 304B and 302 of IPC and also under Sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the marriage of accused/petitioner

was solemnized with the deceased Smt. Sunitha about

four years back and the said marriage was love

marriage, thereafter, they led marital life for more than

four years and as such, there is no question of accused

demanding dowry and there is no harassment caused to

the deceased. He further submitted that the medical
-3-

records clearly go to show that it is an accidental fire

and not done by the accused. Further it is submitted

that except the evidence of relatives and interested

witnesses, there is no other material available as

against the accused/petitioner. Further it is submitted

that the liberty of the accused/petitioner is involved and

when there is no material as against the

accused/petitioner, then under such circumstances, he

is entitled to be released on bail. Further it is submitted

that if at all, all the evidence is accepted at the most the

accused is liable to be punishable under Section 498A

not under Section 304B or 302 or IPC. On these

grounds, he prayed to allow the petition by releasing the

accused/petitioner on bail.

3. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that though

the marriage of the accused and deceased was love

marriage, subsequently, accused used to physically and
-4-

mentally harass by demanding Rs.50,000/- as dowry.

Subsequently, on 26.07.2014 at about 8.00 p.m.,

accused poured Kerosene and lit fire for the purpose of

demand of money and thereafter, left the place. He

further submitted that there is ample material as

against the accused/petitioner. Further it is submitted

that already seven witnesses have been examined by the

trial Court and the said witnesses have categorically

deposed regarding the demand for dowry and the act of

the accused pouring kerosene and setting ablaze to the

deceased-Smt. Sunitha. Further it is submitted that at

this juncture, if the submissions which have been made

by the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken into

consideration, it is likely to prejudice the case on merits

at the time of deciding the case. The petitioner has not

made out any good grounds to release him on bail. On

these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
-5-

4. I have gone through the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

High Court Government Pleader and I have perused the

records.

5. The records indicate that the Court below

has already fixed the trial and recorded the evidence of

PWs.1 to 7 and now the case is posted for further

recording of the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the medical records especially the

MLC extract indicates that it is an accidental fire and

not by the accused, it is a matter which has to be

appreciated and adjudicated only when the concerned

Doctor is going to be examined before the Court below.

Now at this juncture if the said aspect is taken into

consideration, definitely it is going to prejudice the trial

before the Court below that too when already seven

witnesses have been examined before the Court. It is
-6-

well settled principle of law that while considering the

bail application, the Court has to keep in mind the

nature of accusation, nature of evidence, severity of

punishment, the character, behavior, means and

standing of the accused; possibility of securing presence

of the accused at the trial; reasonable apprehension of

witnesses being tampered with; larger interest of the

public or the State and similar other circumstances.

6. Keeping in view the said proposition of law,

this is not the appropriate stage to look into the

evidence which has been already recorded or which

subsequently is going to be recorded. Since the trial

has been already commenced, if the trial Court is

directed to expedite the case within a period of six

months from the receipt of this order, then under such

circumstance, it is going to meet the ends of justice. In

that light, petition stands disposed off with a direction
-7-

that the trial Court has to dispose off the case

expeditiously with an outer limit of six months.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS