IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2481/2019

BETWEEN:

Sri R Avinash
s/o Sri A Rajanna
Aged about 27 years
r/a No.590
Ellumandamma Block
SSA Road, Cholanayakanahalli
R T Nagar Post, Bengaluru City
Karnataka – 560032. .. Petitioner

(By Sri C Shankar Reddy, Advocate)

AND:
State of Karnataka
By Hebbal Police Station
Represented by the State
Public Prosecutor, High Court
of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh B G, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2019 of Hebbal P.S.,
Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections
498A, Section304B of IPC.
-2-

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

This case is taken up out of turn on the

submission made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner’s father is suffering from

tuberculosis and replacement of kidney.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to

release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his

arrest in Crime No.25/2019 of Hebbal Police Station,

Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, Section304B of IPC.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader

for the respondent-State.

4. The gist of the complaint is that the

petitioner got married with the deceased as a love
-3-

marriage. Thereafter, they led marital life. On

11.2.2019 she stated that she is having stomach pain.

Immediately, she was taken to Baptist Hospital and she

was inpatient for two days. After two days, i.e. on

13.2.2019 at about 9.00 a.m., she died in the hospital.

Subsequently, the Hebbal Police informed the said fact

to the brother of the deceased and after coming to know

the same, the complaint was filed and the same has

been registered.

5. It is the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioner that the petitioner got married with the

deceased by loving her. Since there was no cordial

relationship between them, there is no question of

demanding dowry. He further submitted that there

were no allegations against the petitioner/accused for

having demanded dowry. After the marriage, the

deceased got converted herself into Hindu religion.

Even her name was also changed. He further submitted
-4-

that there was no ill-treatment and harassment prior

to the death of the deceased and no such complaint has

been registered or informed to anybody. He further

submitted that the deceased consumed poison, only

because when the petitioner/accused questioned her

about the manner in which she attended the function.

Only because of that reason, she consumed poison. If

bail is granted, he is ready to abide by any conditions

imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety. On

these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and grant

anticipatory bail.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued that since the accused is

absconding, he is not available for further investigation

and his mobile phone has been seized. She further

submitted that the death of the deceased has taken

place in her matrimonial house on account of physical

and mental torture given by the accused for further
-5-

dowry. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the

petitioner/accused has to explain, as to under what

circumstances, the deceased consumed poison. On

these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the contents of the complaint and other materials,

which have been produced in this behalf.

8. On close reading of the contents of the

complaint and other materials collected during the

course of investigation, prima facie makes out a case

against the petitioner and there are

sufficient/incriminating materials to implicate the

petitioner in the crime. Un-disputably the deceased

died on 13.2.2019 by consuming poison within seven

years of her marriage in her matrimonial house. The

death of the deceased has not been properly explained.

In the said circumstances, the investigation is still

pending. Hence, I feel that it is not a fit case to grant
-6-

anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

However, if the petitioner/accused surrenders before

the Court and apply for regular bail, the above

observation will not come in the way of considering the

said bail application.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bkm.