IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4813/2019

BETWEEN:

1. Sri. R.N.Manjunath,
S/o. R.Narayana,
Age: 34 years,

2. Sri. R.Narayana,
S/o. R.Gopal,
Age: 61 years,

3. Smt. R.Narayanamma @ Reddamma,
W/o. R.Narayana,
Age: 56 years,

4. Sri. R.Channappa,
S/o. R.Gopal,
Age: 54 years,

5. Sri. M.C.Somashekar,
S/o. M.Chinnaraju,
Age: 45 years,
R/o 169, Bestara
Street Cross, Yelahanka,
Bengaluru-560064.

6. Sri. Venkatesh R.N.,
S/o. R.Narayana,
Age: 56 years,
2

7. Sri. R.Srinivasalu,
S/o. R.Gopal,
Age: 30 years,

8. Smt. R.Lalitha,
W/o. R.Channappa,
Age: 49 years,

9. Smt. R.Saraswathi,
W/o. R.Srinivasalu,
Age: 52 years,

10. Smt. Krishnamma,
W/o. R.Gopal,
Age: 83 yars,

Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 10
are residents of No.1680, 1st Cross,
2nd Main, Kamakashamma Layout,
Yelahanka,
Bengaluru-560064. … Petitioners

(By Sri. Ravi B Naik, Senior Advocate for
Smt. Vijetha R Naik, Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka,
Through Yelahanka P.S.,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka Building,
Bengaluru-560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri. S.Rachaiah, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the
3

petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.100/2019 of Yelahanka P.S., Bengaluru for the
offences punishable under Sections 506, Section201, Section323,
Section498A, Section302 read with 34 of SectionIPC.

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

ORDER

The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 are seeking to

be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest with

respect to proceedings in Crime No.100/2019 for the

offences punishable under Sections 506, Section201, Section323,

Section498A, Section302 read with 34 of SectionIPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the

brother of the deceased on 12.06.2019 had lodged a

complaint alleging that the deceased was done to death

by the petitioners. The facts that come out from the

complaint is that the complainant’s sister had married

accused No.1 on 26.04.2012. It is further stated that at

the time of marriage, gold ornaments, silver articles and

cash were given and marriage was performed in a grand
4

manner. It is stated that petitioner No.1 would harass

the deceased calling upon her to bring dowry. It is

stated that on 26.05.2016, the complainant was

informed that the complainant’s sister was admitted to

the hospital and was serious. It is stated that the

complainant’s sister died and reason attributed in the

Doctor Report is that ‘Death was due to obstruction of

the windpipe’. A complaint came to be lodged on

12.06.2019, FIR was registered and investigation is in

progress.

3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners points out that the inexplicable delay in

lodging the complaint itself casts doubt as regards the

version made out in the complaint. It is further

submitted that the child from the wedlock has been

looked after by petitioner No.1 and his family. It is

submitted that petitioners are willing to subject
5

themselves to interrogation and the complaint has been

filed in a malafide manner for oblique purposes.

4. Taking note of the fact that the incident is

allegedly stated to have occurred on 26.05.2016, there

is nothing on record that would suggest any previous

incident of alleged harassment by petitioner No.1 or his

family prior to the alleged incident. In light of the

unreasonable delay and also noting that the petitioners

belong to a family engaged in business, their

co-operation in the investigation could be ensured by

way of suitable conditions. It is also to be noted that

omnibus allegations have been made against ten

accused including the grand mother of petitioner No.1,

who is aged about 83 years, all of which is a matter to

be proved during trial.

5. Case is made out for enlarging the

petitioners on bail. Custodial interrogation may not be

required, in light of the peculiar facts including the
6

unreasonable delay in lodging of the complaint. Proof of

offences is a matter that ought to be proved on the basis

of circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, petitioners are

entitled to be enlarged on bail.

6. In the result, the bail petition filed by the

petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to

10 are enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in

Crime No.100/2019 for the offences punishable under

Sections 506, Section201, Section323, Section498A, Section302 read with 34 of SectionIPC,

subject to the following conditions:

(i) Each of the petitioners shall appear in
person before the Investigating Officer
in connection with Crime No.100/2019
within 15 days from the date of release
of the order and shall each execute a
personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) each with a surety
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.

7

(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way, any
witness.

(iii) The petitioners shall physically present
themselves and mark their attendance
before the concerned Station House
Officer, Yelahanka Police Station,
Bengaluru City once in a week between
10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of
the final report.

(iv) In the event of change of address, the
petitioners to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.

(v) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioners, shall
result in cancellation of bail.

Any observation made herein shall not be taken as

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8

In light of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019

seeking for interim bail does not survive for

consideration and does not call for any orders and the

same is disposed of as having become redundant.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RB