Karnataka High Court Sri Penchalaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRL. P. No. 1754 OF 2014
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/A NO.284, IST MAIN
7TH CROSS, HRUSHIKESHA NAGAR
HOSAKEREHALLI, BSK 3RD STAGE
(By Sri : LEELADHAR H P, ADV.)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.230/13 OF GIRINAGAR P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 2
This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent – police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC and also under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in the respondent – police station Crime No.230/2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent – State.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that so far as the present petitioner is concerned the prosecution has not placed prima facie material to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offences. Counsel 3
submitted that though it is alleged in the complaint that the husband and in-laws gave ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring more dowry from her parental house, but looking to the further statement recorded on 26.08.2013, it is stated by the Complainant that the mother-in-law of the deceased is residing at Kuwait and she came to attend marriage for two days and thereafter she has went back and she has not given any sort of ill-treatment insisting the deceased to bring the dowry amount, as he was in grief mode because of the death of his daughter and with an intention to teach a lesson he gave complaint against all. Hence, counsel made submission that this goes to show that complaint has been made by the Complainant even including present petitioner only with an intention to teach lesson to all the family members. The learned counsel also made the submission that looking to the complaint it is not a case of the prosecution that at the time of marriage with the deceased there was a demand for dowry. Therefore, the 4
question of making further demand for more dowry amount will not arise at all. Counsel further submitted that there is exaggerated version in the complaint which is not supported by the further statement of the Complainant himself. He also made the submission that investigation of the case is complete and charge sheet is filed. Hence, he submitted by imposing any conditions the present petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail. It is also his contention that when the alleged incident took place the present petitioner was not in the house, which is very much clear from the mahazar drawn by the Investigating Officer. In support of his contention the learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the decision reported in 2005(1) CRIMES 283 (SC) AND (2010) 7 SCC 667.
4. As against this the learned HCGP appearing for respondent – State during the course of his arguments submitted that the marriage has taken place on 26.05.2013 and alleged incident took place on 24.08.2013 within a span of three months. He also 5
made submission that looking to the averments of the complaint that there are allegations that the petitioner along with accused No.1 was giving ill-treatment to the deceased insisting her to bring more dowry from her parental house. He submitted that death has taken place in the house of the husband when the deceased was leading her marital life. It is also his contention that in the complaint itself it is mentioned by the Complainant about ill-treatment and harassment, deceased was informing the same to Complainant over phone. Even on the date of incident also the deceased phoned to the Complainant and informed that husband and in-laws are giving ill-treatment insisting her to bring more dowry amount. Hence, learned Government Pleader made submission that in view of these materials collected by the prosecution petitioner is not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and order passed by the Lower Court on the bail application and I have also 6
perused the other materials produced along with the petition. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint by the Complainant, who is father of the deceased it is stated that after the marriage the present petitioner – husband of the deceased and even the mother-in-law were giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased telling that they have not done the marriage in a splendid manner, they have not spent much amount, they have saved much money and for that reason she has to bring more dowry amount from her parental place and insisted her by giving physical as well as mental ill-treatment.
6. It is also mentioned in para-2 of the complaint that husband and father-in-law have assaulted her with hands in connection with more dowry amount and this fact, deceased informed to her father over the phone. It is also mentioned in the complaint that on 24.08.2013 in the morning deceased informed the Complainant over phone that the husband and father-in-law are giving ill-treatment and harassment to 7
her. So these averments made in the complaint it is stated to have told by the deceased to the Complainant over phone amounting to oral dying declaration after the death of the deceased. This contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that looking to the further statement of the Complainant, it goes to show that the allegations are made in the complaint only to teach lesson to the family members of the present petitioner.
7. In the further statement Complainant made it clear that when he was in a grief mood because of the death of his daughter, he has mentioned even the name of mother-in-law also in the complaint, but thereafter he has clarified that she has not given any sort of ill- treatment or harassment to the deceased and it is mentioned that to teach a lesson he has mentioned in his complaint like that. So looking to these material on record collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation it prima facie goes to show that there is ill- treatment and harassment to the deceased in connection with the dowry amount by the husband as 8
well as the present petitioner. As submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the death is taken place within a span of three months from the date of marriage and it has taken place in the house of the husband when she was leading her marital life.
8. There is also material placed by the prosecution immediately prior to her death she was subjected to cruel treatment both physically and mentally in connection with bringing more dowry amount. I have perused the decision and principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, which are referred to above. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the case those decisions are not made applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances of those cases are not one and the same. Therefore, looking to all these material on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
The observations made in the order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and the trial court shall not be influenced by the aforesaid observation during the course of trial.