1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8371/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI PARAMESHA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA,
2. SMT. SUVARANAMMA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O PARAMESHA GOWDA,
NOs.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDIDNG AT
AMBALE VILLAGE,
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK
DISTRICT-571 602.
3. SMT. LAVANYA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
W/O MANJUNATH,
R/AT BANK ROAD, HOSABADAVANE,
AMBALE VILLAGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND
DISTRICT-571 602.
4. SRI. REVANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA,
R/AT AMBALE VILLAGE OF
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK
DISTRICT-571 602.
2
5. SRI. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
S/O CHOWDE GOWDA,
R/AT BANK ROAD,
HOSABADAVANE, AMBALE VILLAGE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK
DISTRICT-571 602.
6. SRI. HARISHA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O REVANNA GOWDA
R/AT AMBALE VILLAGE OF
CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK
DISTRICT-571 602.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE – THROUGH THE
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
WOMEN POLICE STATION,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
TUMAKURU.
(REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.)
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, H.C.G.P.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.438 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.87/2017
OF WOMEN P.S., TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 304B, 498A, 114 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND
SCHEDLED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.2 to 7 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking
anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to
release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest
for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A,
114 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) registered in the respondent – police station
Crime No.87/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 7 and
also the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Father of the deceased is the complainant
in this case, wherein he has stated that in the
4
month of January, 2017 the deceased left the house
and a police complaint was lodged; she returned on
28.4.2017 and on enquiry it is revealed that she has
already married with accused No.1 in a temple; on
the same day, i.e. on 28.4.2017 the marriage was
registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Chikkamagaluru. The relatives of accused No.1
were opposing the marriage on the ground that the
first informant belongs to Adi-Karnataka
community and the bridegroom belongs to Kuruba
community. Therefore, relatives of the bridegroom
were instigating him to harass the deceased and to
illtreat her in connection with dowry demand. She
also revealed the same to her father over phone
stating that she was being illtreated at the instance
of other-in-laws and on the next day, at about 10
a.m. one Prakash called him over the phone stating
5
that Kavya had committed suicide by hanging. On
the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be
registered for the said alleged offences.
4. Perusing the materials placed on record,
there are allegations as against accused No.1. But
insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, it
is alleged that they instigated accused No.1 to
illtreat the deceased. Therefore, insofar as said
allegation of instigating accused No.1 by other
accused persons is concerned, it is a matter of trial.
The complaint averment itself goes to show that
accused No.1 and deceased were residing separately
in a rented house at Tumkur. This also supports
the contention of the petitioners herein that they are
not connected with the alleged offences. This
petition being filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,
and the alleged offences are also under the
6
provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, in view of Section 18
of the said Act, the Court has to consider whether
the materials placed on record go to constitute the
offence even under the provisions of SC/ST (POA)
Act.
5. Looking to the complaint averments and
other materials produced in the case, the allegation
as against the present petitioners is that they
instigated accused No.1 to give ill-treatment to the
deceased. Therefore, insofar as the present
petitioners are concerned and considering the
materials produced in the case, I am of the opinion,
Section 18 of the SC/ST(POA) Act cannot be a bar
as the allegation made in the complaint will not
constitute such offences as against them. With
regard to other offences are concerned, even looking
7
to the case of the prosecution, it is clear that it is
accused No.1, who illtreated the deceased. Even
when she gave a phone call to the father she has
specifically stated that she was being harassed by
accused No.1. Looking to these materials, the
alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with
death or imprisonment for life.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed and the
respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present
petitioners/accused No.2 to 7 on bail in the event of
their arrest in connection with Crime No.87/2017
registered for the above said offences, subject to the
following conditions:
i. Each petitioner shall execute a
personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and
shall furnish one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the
arresting authority.
8
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses, directly or
indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves
available before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation, as and when
called for and to cooperate with the
further investigation.
iv. The petitioners have to appear before
the concerned Court within 30 days
from the date of this order and to
execute the personal bond and the
surety bond.
7. Since the main petition is disposed of, IA
No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration and it
is also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SA
