1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8864/2017
BETWEEN:

SRI PRADEEP, S/O KUMAR,
AGE 23 YEARS
R/O RAJEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE,
H.D.KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571 125
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.V.CHARATI, ADV. FOR
SRI MANJESH H M., ADV.)

AND:

STATE BY H D KOTE POLICE STATION
H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.302/2016 (S.C.NO.129/2017) OF
H.D.KOTE POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,114,302 r/w 34 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on

bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

114, 302 read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent –

police station Crime No.302/2016 and now pending in

S.C.No.129/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the

course of his arguments has submitted that at the first

instance it is not only the petitioner and his father, but

other family members were also wrapped in the case.

On conducting investigation, Police filed charge sheet

only against the petitioner and his father. He submitted
3

that looking to the prosecution materials collected

during investigation and also the medical opinion, there

is no prima-facie case made out against the petitioner

that he is responsible for the death of the deceased. It

is also his submission that even there is no consistency

in the case of the prosecution, firstly they made a

submission that petitioner/accused has committed her

murder by strangulation, but subsequently in the

further statement it is stated by throttling and by

pressing the neck, they have caused the death. He also

submitted that from the date of arrest petitioner is in

custody, hence, by imposing reasonable conditions

petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, during the course of his arguments has

submitted that the death has occurred within six

months from the date of marriage, that too, in the house
4

of the petitioner, who is the husband of deceased. He

also submitted that there is an allegation in the

complaint that deceased was ill-treated by the petitioner

and other family members. Looking to the materials

collected during investigation, there is a prima-facie

involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged

offence. He has further submitted that as per Section

106 of Evidence Act, it is the petitioner, who is the

husband of the deceased, to explain under what

circumstances the death has taken place. Hence,

submitted that petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail

and submitted to reject the petition.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on

record.

6. Looking to the prosecution material, it is no

doubt true that the marriage of the deceased with the
5

petitioner was performed about six months prior to the

alleged incident. The incident took place in the house of

the petitioner. In the complaint there are allegations

that deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and

harassment by the petitioner and other family members.

As it is rightly submitted by the learned HCGP that it is

for the present petitioner to show under what

circumstances the incident has taken place in his

house. Perusing the medical opinion, death is because

of asphyxia secondary to strangulation. Considering

these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that

there is a prima-facie material about the involvement of

the petitioner in the alleged incident. Therefore, it is not

a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the

petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR