SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri Venkateshalu Naidu vs State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2020

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.470 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

SRI VENKATESHALU NAIDU
S/O DEVARAJA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O AT NO.47, 4TH FLOOR,
5TH CROSS, KRISHNA RESIDENCY,
CHANNASANDRA, UTTARAHALLI,
RAJARAJESWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 061. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA.B.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MADIVALA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURTOF
KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CR.NO.142 OF 2019 (C.C.NO.27726/2019) OF
2

MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B R/W
34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the

records.

2. The petitioner had earlier approached this

Court in Crl.P.No.4796/2019 for grant of anticipatory bail

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and

also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in

connection with Crime No.142 of 2019 on the file of the

Respondent-Madivala Police. This Court had rejected the

said bail petition vide order dated 25.09.2019 as the

investigation was not completed by that time. Presently,

the charge-sheet is filed and the petitioner was arrested
3

on 27.10.2019 and since then, he has been in judicial

custody.

3. The factual matrix of the case are that, the

deceased Smt.Neelavathi was given in marriage to the

present petitioner on 01.06.2017. It is alleged that at

the time of the marriage, some gold and silver articles

and cash of Rs.80,000/- were given in consideration of

the marriage. After the marriage, accused Nos.2 and 3

were demanding Rs.50 Lakhs from her towards the

consideration of the marriage as dowry. In this context,

the accused persons were ill-treating and harassing her.

It is also the case of the prosecution itself that since eight

months prior to the date of incident, the petitioner and

his wife were not living together. She was actually kept

in P.G. and even after that, they were not able to pull on

the marital life with each other. Therefore, divorce notice

was issued to her and divorce petition was also filed

before the jurisdictional Court. It is contended that,
4

being frustrated in life, the deceased committed suicide in

a hotel room leaving a death note in detail stating the

circumstances prevailed upon her to commit suicide. A

careful perusal of the death note reveals that, there is no

specific allegation against the petitioner with regard to

demand of dowry by him. On the other hand, the alleged

demand was by the accused Nos.2 and 3. Of course it is

alleged that, he was always a silent spectator even

whenever, in his presence, accused Nos. 2 3 were ill-

treating and harassing the deceased. Therefore, it is

stated that the deceased was frustrated in life and

committed suicide.

4. The trial Court has to examine during the full-

fledged trial whether the said allegations under Section

304-B or 306 of I.P.C are true or false and also about

the sensitivity of the deceased as to how she was

behaving with the family members of the accused and

what really prompted her to commit suicide.
5

5. It is evident from records that, the death of

the deceased is not under suspicion as the deceased died

because of asphyxia due to hanging. The accused is an

employee of HDFC Bank and further there are no chances

of he absconding or fleeing away from the justice, if he

abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this

Court. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for this

Court to enlarge him on bail, particularly, under Section

439 of Cr.P.C., as the interrogation has already been over

and the accused is no more required for any further

investigation. Hence, the following,-

ORDER

The Petition is allowed. Consequently, petitioner
shall be released on bail in connection with Crime
No.142/2019 (C.C.No.27726/2019) of Madivala Police
Station, Bengaluru City, registered for the alleged
offences, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only)
with two sureties for the like-sum to the
6

satisfaction of the Trial Court or Committal Court
as the case may be;

(ii) He shall not indulge in tampering the
prosecution witnesses.

(iii) He shall appear before the jurisdictional Court
on all the future hearing dates unless exempted
by the Court for any genuine cause.

(iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial
Court without prior permission of the Court till the
case registered against him is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DH

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation