Karnataka High Court Sri Somashekarachar vs State By Vyalikaval on 7 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R. B. CRL.P.NO. 1017 OF 2014
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
SON OF ANANTHAPADMANABHACHAR, RESIDING AT NO.6, 6TH CROSS,
NAGAPPA ROAD, P.G. HALLI,
BANGALORE – 560 003.
(By SRI. B. R. VISHWANATH, ADV.) AND:
STATE BY VYALIKAVAL
POLICE STATION, BANGALORE,
STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTORS,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
(By SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) * *** *
THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.220/13 OF 2
VYALIKAVAL P.S., BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 304B R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS CRL. PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304-B r/w.34 of IPC in Crime No.220/13 of Vyalikaval Police Station, Bangalore City.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner-accused and also the learned HCGP.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner, his mother and other family members, giving ill-treatment to the deceased insisting to bring the amount from the parental place because of that reason, deceased committed suicide when she was residing in the house of petitioner-herein.
4. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR and the complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and also the death note and statement of witnesses recorded by the IO during investigation.
5. Certain facts are undisputed that, deceased Hemavathi died within three years of her marriage with the petitioner when she was leading her marital life in the house of the petitioner. Looking to the statement of witnesses CWs 2 to 4 and the neighbours, they clearly go to show that the present petitioner used to give illtreatment to the deceased. The statement also goes to show that on an earlier occasion also the deceased filed complaint before the Police against the present petitioner. At that time, petitioner’s family members were called and during deliberations, they advised the petitioner and his family members to treat the deceased properly. So the earlier complaint was closed. Even looking the death note also prima facie, it gives an impression that the deceased 4
was subjected to harassment by the petitioner and other family members.
6. Since the material collected during the investigation by the Investigating Officer by way of statement of witnesses prima facie goes to show that the acts of ill-treatment meted out to the deceased, she has taken a decision to put an end to her life. Therefore, it prima facie goes to show that the petitioner being the husband of the deceased is mainly responsible for the death of the deceased.
7. Looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion to admit the petitioner to bail in the present petition.
8. Accordingly, petition is rejected. However, the above observations are made only for the purpose of disposal of this bail petition. Sd/-