IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2481/2019
Sri R Avinash
s/o Sri A Rajanna
Aged about 27 years
SSA Road, Cholanayakanahalli
R T Nagar Post, Bengaluru City
Karnataka – 560032. .. Petitioner
(By Sri C Shankar Reddy, Advocate)
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.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this
day, the Court made the following:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.