Karnataka High Court Sri Ramachandra @ Chandru vs State By Mudigere P.S on 14 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.1217/2014
1. Sri. Ramachandra @ Chandru,
Aged about 40 years,
2. Smt. Baby @ Latha,
W/o. Ramacandra @ Chandru,
Aged about 38 years. .. PETITIONERS Both are R/at Shakthinagar,
Pin Code-577 132.
(By Sri. Chandrashekara. K.A, Adv.) AND:
State by Mudigere Police
Pin Code-577 132.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Bangalore. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.164/2013 of Mudigere P.S., Chickmkagalur, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 R/w 34 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.164/2013. Subsequently, charge sheet has been filed for the alleged offence under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments, submitted that even if the charge 3
sheet materials are considered, serious allegations are made against husband of the deceased i.e., accused No.1. The learned counsel made submission that so far as the petitioners are concerned, the allegations are general in nature. There is no prima facie materials about their involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. He made submission that the petitioners never ill treated the deceased nor insisted her to bring any dowry amount. He made further submission that though Section 302 of IPC is alleged against the petitioners, investigation materials go to show that the deceased committed suicide and this itself goes to show falsity of the case against the petitioners. He submitted that Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioners are in custody. He submitted that the petitioners are having a child of three years old and they are the only persons to take care of the said child. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to bail.
4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the averments made in the complaint as well as the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during investigation makes out a case even against the petitioners that they were ill treating and harassing the deceased in connection with dowry amount. The case of the prosecution further goes to show that even on previous two occasions, when such ill treatment was met out to the deceased by the petitioners and when she informed the same over phone to her parents, her parents advised accused No.1 not to ill treat the deceased and to treat her properly. In spite of such advise, the ill treatment continued. Hence, the learned HCGP submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, charge sheet and the other materials on record. I have also perused the statement of witnesses recorded by the investigating officer during 5
investigation. The main allegations are against accused No.1 – the husband of the deceased. It is specifically contended that accused No.1 got removed the roof of his house as he wanted to construct the first floor on the said house. In that connection, accused No.1 was insisting the deceased that he was in need of money for construction of the house and giving ill treatment to the deceased to bring more money from her parental place. The statement of other witnesses also goes to show that it is the husband against whom the serious allegations are made. It is no doubt true that even with regard to the petitioners are concerned, general allegations are made that along with accused No.1, the petitioners were also giving ill treatment to the deceased. Now, Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. It is the case of the petitioners that they are having a small child aged three years and they have to take care of the said child. Therefore, by imposing reasonable stringent conditions, the petitioners can be admitted to bail.
6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent police station Crime No.164/2013, subject to following conditions:- I. Each petitioner shall execute bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) and shall offer a surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.
II. The petitioners shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. III. The petitioners shall attend the concerned Court regularly.