SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Yallapa vs State By Subramanyapura on 26 April, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2489 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1. Sri.Yallapa
S/o Venkatesh,
Aged about 28 years

2. Sri Venkatesh @ Yankoji,
S/o Balappa Arera,
Aged about 52 years,

Both are R/a No.401,
Buldota, 2nd Cross,
14th Main, Munivenkatappa A layout,
Bangalore-560061,
(Accused 1 and 2 are in
Judicial Custody) …Petitioners

(By Sri.B.G.Lokesha, Advocate)

AND:
State by Subramanyapura
Police Station, Represented by
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560001. …respondent

(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh.B.G, HCGP)
-2-

This criminal petition is filed under section 439 of
the code of the criminal procedure code praying to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.423/2018
(C.C.No.6320/2019) of Subramanyapura P.S.,
Bangalore for the offence P/U/S 498A, 304B R/w of SectionIPC
and Sec.3, 4 of DP Act.

This criminal petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the court made the following:

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C., to release them on bail in Crime No.423/2018

of Subramanyapura Police Station for the offence

punishable under Section 498A, Section304B read with 34 of

SectionIPC and Section 3 and Section4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. Gist of the complaint is that the marriage of

the daughter of the complainant was performed with
-3-

petitioner/accused No.1 on 21.04.2017 by giving some

dowry and gold articles. Subsequently, there was ill-

treatment and harassment caused by the

petitioners/accused to the deceased for bringing the

additional dowry and gold. Because of the ill-treatment

and harassment, the deceased committed suicide by

hanging on 29.12.2018. On the basis of this complaint,

the said case has been registered.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel

for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 that the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are innocent. They

have not committed any offences alleged against them.

It is his further submission that no dowry has been paid

at the time of marriage. Subsequently, there was no ill-

treatment and harassment for bringing the dowry. Even

the petitioner/accused No.1 has spent the money for

the marriage not even single paisa has been paid by the

complainant. It is further submitted that the deceased
-4-

was insisting to have separate house. Hence, the

petitioner/accused No.1 told that his mother is no more

and he is having a small sister and brother and after

they attaining the age of the majority, they can have the

separate house, inspite of her insistent, when he did not

agree, then she committed suicide and it is not dowry

death. It is further submitted that they are ready to

abide by the conditions imposed on them by this Court

and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he

prayed to allow the petition and to release the

petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 on bail.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that there is

ample material to show that the petitioner/accused

No.1 along with accused No.2 has consistently ill-

treated and harassed the deceased for demand of dowry.

Because of the physical harassment, the panchayath

was held and even the statement of PW 1, 2 and 11
-5-

clearly goes to show that deceased was died due to ill-

treatment and harassment caused by the

petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 for demand of dowry. It

is further submitted that earlier to the alleged incident,

she tried to commit suicide by hanging herself but

somehow she survived. Subsequently, she committed

suicide. But all the prima facie material goes to show

that there was ill-treatment and harassment by the

petitioner/accused No.1. On these grounds, he prayed

to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the submission made by the learned counsel appearing

for both the parties and perused the records.

7. As could be seen from the contents of the

charge sheet materials, though there is allegations and

materials to show that there was ill-treatment and

harassment for demand of dowry and a Panchayath was

also held. The deceased used to tell the said facts to the
-6-

brother and sister of the deceased. Investigation has

been completed and charge sheet has been filed. Insofar

as the petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned no such

serious allegations have been made. Be that as it may,

even the petitioner/accused No.2 is aged about 52

years. It is submitted that he is also suffering from

health elements. Under the above said facts and

circumstance, I feel that by imposing some stringent

conditions, if the petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to

be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of

justice. Insofar as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned

there is ample material to connect the accused No.1 to

the alleged offence. The death of the deceased has taken

place at the matrimonial home. Hence, the petition

concerned to the petitioner/accused No.1 is dismissed.

8. In that light, insofar as the petition filed by

the petitioner/accused No.1 stands dismissed. Insofar

as the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 is
-7-

concerned, the same is partly allowed. The petitioner-

accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime

No.423/2018 of Subramanyapura Police Station for the

offence punishable under Section 498A, Section304(B) read

with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and Section4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 subject to the following

conditions:

1. Petitioner/accused No.2 shall execute a personal
bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two
lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court.

2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court
without prior permission.

3. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
directly or indirectly.

4. He shall regularly attend the trial.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KTY

Leave a Reply

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

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