SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri K.R. Rangappa vs State By Kunigal Police Station on 20 December, 2013

Karnataka High Court Sri K.R. Rangappa vs State By Kunigal Police Station on 20 December, 2013Author: H.S.Kempanna

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2013 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6873/2013

BETWEEN

SRI. K.R.RANGAPPA

S/O. RANGA NARASIMHAIAH @ RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

DIPLOMA IN ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION R/O. AT B.J.NAGAR (MALLI PALYA)

KUNIGAL TALUK – 572 130.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA S., ADV.,)

AND:

STATE BY KUNIGAL POLICE STATION

REPRESENTED BY SPP

HIGH COURT BUILDING

BANGALORE – 560 001.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.245/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. S.J., TUMKUR, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 498A, 304(b), 302 R/W. 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AN 4 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

2

ORDER

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A.1 in S.C.No.245/2012 on the file of III Addl. Sessions Judge, Tumkur, registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 304(B), 302 r/w. 149 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, 1961, is before this Court praying for releasing him on bail.

2. It is the case of prosecution, deceased Manasa is the daughter of CW.1, who is a conductor by avocation and native of Urdigere of Tumkur Taluk. During the year 2008-09, the deceased Manasa was prosecuting her studies in Diploma course at Kalabyraveshwara Polytechnic College situated at Hesarghatta. They belong to Thigala community. At the same time the present petitioner was also prosecuting his studies in Diploma in the very same college and in the very same year. The petitioner hails from SC community. In due course 3

of time, both of them fell in love with each other. Thereafter, on 1.11.2009 the petitioner and the deceased Manasa got married themselves at Ranganatha Temple, Kunigal and later they got their marriage registered on 6.11.2010 in the office of Sub-registrar at Tumkur. After their marriage, they started living in the house of the petitioner at Kunigal. Thereafter, both of them joined for third year course of diploma in SDM Diploma College situated at Binnamangala in Nelamangala Taluk. They were coming to the college from Kunigal daily in a bus.

3. It is further the case of the prosecution, sometime in the fag end of the year 2011, the accused i.e. the petitioner, his parents and brothers who are arrayed as A.2 to A.5 started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry both by way of cash and 4

jewellary. When this was brought to the notice of the complainant and his family members, they got advised the accused not to subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment. Despite the same, the accused had not given up their acts. Ultimately on 26.1.2012 the deceased being unbearable of the cruelty and harassment meted out to her committed suicide in the house of the accused at Kunigal. Since the deceased committed suicide in the house of the accused, the complaint was lodged by the father- CW.1, upon which case came to be registered by the respondent/police. During the course of investigation the petitioner came to be arrested on 27.1.2012. Since then he is in custody. Therefore, he has filed the present petition praying for releasing him on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out set submitted, earlier the petitioner had 5

approached this Court praying for releasing him on bail in Crl.P.No.3844/2013 and the said petition was got dismissed as withdrawn on 31.7.2013. Thereafter, he moved the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge for releasing him on bail. Since his application came to be rejected by order dated 25.10.2013, he is before this Court praying for releasing him on bail. He submitted that the petitioner and the deceased had studied at Kalabyraveshwara Polytechnic College for two years, during which period, they had fallen in love and had got themselves married. After the marriage, the deceased was living in the marital home at Kunigal and till the fag end of the year 2011 there was no whisper about any demand for dowry made by any of the accused including this petitioner. He submits, A.4 and A.5 in the case who are brothers of this petitioner are Engineering graduates and well-settled in life. He further submits, the land 6

belonging to the family of the petitioner had been acquired by the Railways in the year 2005 and in that connection family of the accused i.e. parents A.2 and A.3 had received compensation to the tune of Rs.75,00,000/-. In view of this he submits, the theory that is now projected that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry goes a long way to believe the same. He submits, the deceased has committed suicide for the reasons best known to her. The accused have no nexus with the same. A.2 to A.5 in the case have already been enlarged on bail by the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge. The petitioner is in custody since 27.1.2012, therefore, under these circumstances he be released on bail.

5. The application filed by the petitioner is opposed by the State.

7

6. A perusal of the allegations in the complaint reveals, the petitioner and the deceased got married on 1.11.2009 at Ranganatha Swamy temple at Kunigal. Subsequently, they have got their marriage registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Tumkur on 6.11.2010. After the marriage she was living in the house of the petitioner at Kunigal Town. They have completed two years of their Diploma course at Kalabyraveshwara, Polytechnic Diploma College, Hesaraghatta. They joined for third year diploma course at SDM diploma College, Binnamangala. They were coming to the said college from Kunigal daily in a bus. Till the fag end of the year 2011 there is no allegation that the accused had subjected the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for cash and jewels. It may be mentioned the complainant has not specifically stated what was the amount and the quantity of jewels that was 8

demanded by the accused. On the other hand, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner A.4 and A.5 in the case who are brothers of the petitioner are engineers and are well settled in life. Family of the petitioner have also received compensation in respect of the land that has been acquired by the Railways in the year 2005. Father of the deceased is conductor by avocation. In this background, in the facts of the case, taking into account the petitioner is in custody since 21.1.2012 and as other accused have been enlarged on bail, in the circumstances, I do not find any justification to decline the request of this petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of 9

Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Judge subject to the following conditions:-

1. He shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

2. He shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing.

SD/-

JUDGE

SA

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