Karnataka High Court Sri Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.1082/2014
S/o. K.L. Muniyappa,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at. Kalappanahalli Village,
Bangalore Rural District-562 114. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. A.G. Nagaraja, Adv.)
The State of Karnataka,
Bangalore Rural District.
Rep. by the
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.307/2013 on the file of the P.O., F.T.C.-II, Bangalore 2
Rural District, Bangalore in Cr. No.228/2013 of Nandagudi P.S., Bangalore Dist. for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 of IPC and Sec. 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 petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.228/2013. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that at the first instance, the offence alleged against the petitioner that he has caused the death of the deceased. But, during the 3
investigation, it was transpired that it is the deceased who committed suicide. It is submitted that the complaint was filed with vengeance not only against the petitioner but also against two other persons. During the investigation, as the investigating officer did not find any material so far as the other two persons are concerned, charge sheet has been filed only against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that there are no allegations made in the complaint as well the other materials collected by the investigating officer regarding harassment met by the petitioner to the deceased in connection with the dowry amount. Hence, it is submitted that the alleged offence under section 304B of IPC will not be attracted so also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Counsel further submitted that since there is no prima facie materials with regard to the offence under Section 304B of IPC, the remaining offences are not punishable for death or imprisonment for life and they are triable by the Magistrate Court.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is an allegation that the petitioner has 4
not at all provided household things to the deceased. The learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the Mahazar and submitted that about the articles found in the house at the time of drawing mahazar itself go to show that the petitioner provided every thing to the deceased and she was leading happy marital life with the petitioner in his house. Hence, there is false implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. He submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. In support of his contention, the kerned Counsel has relied upon two decisions in case of MODINSAB KASIMSAB KANCHAGAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2013 Crl.L.J. 2056 and JASVINDER SAINI AND OTHERS VS. STATE (GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI) reported in 2013(3) SCC (CRL.) 295. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted to allow the petition.
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the materials 5
collected during investigation go to show that there used to be ill treatment and harassment by the petitioner to the deceased and because of that reason, the deceased committed suicide. The learned HCGP submitted that the marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was performed on 20.11.2007 and the death has taken place within seven years from the date of marriage. This goes to show, prima facie, the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, statement of witnesses, mahazar and the order of the lower court on the bail application.
7. Certain aspects are undisputed even according to the petitioner that the incident took place within seven years of marriage between the petitioner and the deceased when she was leading her marital life with the petitioner in his house. Regarding contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation with regard to payment 6
of more dowry amount by the petitioner, looking to the statement of parents of the deceased and also the other witnesses, their statement recorded by the investigating officer during investigation goes to show that the petitioner was demanding and insisting the deceased to bring more amount from her parental place. The purpose for which the petitioner demanded more amount from the deceased is a matter for appreciation by the trial court during trial. But the materials collected during investigation by the investigating officer clearly go to show that there was ill treatment and harassment to the deceased by the petitioner insisting her to bring more amount from her parental place. It is also mentioned in the statement of the father of the deceased that for 2-3 times, amount as demanded by the petitioner was given to him. These materials collected during investigation go to show that there is abetment of suicide by the petitioner and he being husband of the deceased, who was residing with him, is accountable and responsible to explain about the death of the deceased. 7
8. I have perused the decisions cited supra by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the principles enunciated in those decisions. The facts and circumstances collected in the present case and the facts and circumstances stated in those decisions are not exactly one and the same. At this stage, they are not made applicable to the present case and they will not come to the aid and assistance to the case of the petitioner.
9. There is a death note said to have been left by the deceased. The death note also goes to show that there was ill treatment and harassment by the petitioner to the deceased. Under these circumstances, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected.