Karnataka High Court Sri. P.K. Hemanthraj vs The State Of Karnataka By on 15 April, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.2007/2014
Sri. P.K. Hemanthraj,
S/o. Late Krishnaraju,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.3, 8th Cross,
Bengaluru-560 067. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. Anandeeswara. D.R., Adv.)
The State of Karnataka by
Subramanyapura Police Station,
Bengaluru-560 067. .. 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 Cr. No.345/2013 of Subramanyapura P.S., Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. 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 offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.345/2013.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the marriage of the deceased, who is the daughter of the complainant, with the petitioner was performed on 6.7.2006. At the time of marriage, a gold chain and cash of Rs.25,000/- was given to the petitioner. After the marriage, the couple were living together in a rented house. Out of the wed lock, they got two children. In the year 2008, the petitioner constructed a house. The petitioner often used to pick up quarrel with the deceased telling that he has own house and he was asking her to go and die in her parent’s place. He was torturing the deceased, both mentally and physically, and telling that he will marry another lady. Because of that reason, she committed suicide on 29.7.2013. On the basis of the complaint, case has been registered by the respondent police.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the only allegation as per statement made in the complaint is that the petitioner asked the deceased to go to her father’s house and die there. He made submission that the petitioner never demanded any amount from the deceased nor there was any sort of ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased. False allegations are made against the petitioner. He also submitted that if really there was ill treatment and harassment by the petitioner to the deceased, even on an earlier occasion also, the complaint could have been filed against the petitioner. He submitted that the investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. By imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the 4
course of the arguments, submitted that regarding ill treatment and harassment by the petitioner to the deceased, the investigating officer has recorded the statement of parents and brother of the deceased and the other witnesses which clearly goes to show that the petitioner has ill treated the deceased. He also submitted that the death has taken place within seven years from the date of marriage of the deceased with the petitioner and that too, in the house of the petitioner when the deceased was leading her marital life. 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 and the other materials on record. I have also perused the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application.
7. As submitted by the learned HCGP, the death has taken place within seven years from the date of marriage of the petitioner with the deceased when she was leading her life in the house of the petitioner husband. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, there used to be 5
harassment and ill-treatment, both mentally and physically, by the petitioner to the deceased.
8. Looking to the statement of witnesses said to have been recorded by the investigating officer during investigation, the witnesses have supported the contents of the complaint regarding ill treatment and harassment. The petitioner being husband of the deceased is responsible and answerable for the death of the deceased which has taken place in his house. With regard to the other allegations also, there are materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation which would clearly show that the petitioner was abusing the deceased telling that he wanted to marry another girl and she can go and die in her parents place as the said house belongs to him. Looking to all these materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly rejected. Sd/-