SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sunil Jain vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5012/2018

BETWEEN:

Sunil Jain,
S/o. Mahaveer Jain,
Aged about 30 years,
R/o. SVP Compound,
B.H.Road, Tiptur – 573 201.
Tumkuru District. ..Petitioner

(By Sri. G.R.Prakash, Advocate)

AND:
State of Karnataka, by
Tiptur Town Police, Tiptur,
Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Buildings,
Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.24/2018 of Tiptur Town Police Station,
Tumakuru for the offence P/U/S 498(A) and 304(B)
R/W 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
-2-

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

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the

petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to release the petitioner/accused on bail in

Crime No.24/2018 of Town Police Station, Tiptur for

the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B

read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner/accused that the marriage of deceased

was performed on 22.07.2015 and there was no demand

of dowry and as per the contents of the complaint filed

by the mother of the deceased, for silly reasons the

petitioner/accused used to quarrel with the deceased.

On 14.02.2018, there was delay while cooking food and

the same was informed by the deceased and the

complainant spoke to the petitioner/accused and to his
-3-

father to console the deceased and accordingly, the

petitioner/accused consoled her and on 20.02.2018 for

silly reasons, the deceased committed suicide by

hanging. There is no material to attract the provisions

of Section 304B of IPC and also Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. Further it is submitted that the

petitioner and deceased lived happily and there was no

physical or mental torture for demand of any dowry. It

is further submitted that already the chargesheet is filed

and accused No.2 has been released on bail, no useful

purpose is going to be served if the accused/petitioner

is continued in judicial custody. On these grounds, he

prayed to allow the petition.

3. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued by contending that though

no such allegations are made regarding demand of

dowry in the complaint but subsequently, the statement

of mother of the deceased stated before the police
-4-

indicates that there was demand for dowry, ill-treatment

and harassment caused by accused persons. He

further submitted that there is prima-facie material as

against the petitioner/ accused and if the

petitioner/accused is released on bail, there is

likelihood of he tampering with the prosecution

witnesses and he may abscond and may not be

available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to

dismiss the petition.

4. I have gone through the submissions made

by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

High Court Government Pleader and I have perused the

documents produced along with the petition.

5. It is not in dispute that the deceased

committed suicide by hanging in the house of the

accused and even the complaint which is said to have

been filed by the brother of the accused, does not

disclose the fact that there was any demand of dowry by
-5-

the accused. The only allegation that has been made is

with regard to ill-treatment and harassment caused by

the accused. Though during the course of arguments,

learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that

the statement of mother of the deceased discloses that

there was ill-treatment and harassment caused by the

accused for demand of jewellery and other articles, that

is a matter which has to be considered and appreciated

at the time of recording the evidence and deciding the

case. But prima-facie the complaint discloses that there

was only ill-treatment and harassment but there was no

demand for dowry. Even there is no allegation that

earlier there was ill-treatment for demand for dowry and

some complaints have also been filed as against the

petitioner/accused, even records disclose that earlier

deceased called her mother on 14.02.2018 and informed

that she is going to commit suicide. Mother called

accused and informed to console the deceased, that

itself shows that there was no such ill-treatment or
-6-

harassment for demand of dowry. It is well established

proposition of law that while considering the bail

application, the Court has to look into the nature of

accusation; nature of evidence, severity of the

punishment, the character, behavior, means and

standing of the accused; possibility of securing presence

of the accused at the trial; reasonable apprehension of

witnesses being tampered with; larger interest of the

public or the State and similar other factors.

6. Keeping in view the above said facts and

circumstances and the proposition of law, I feel that

when already chargesheet is filed and the material

which has been produced does not disclose that there is

serious allegation as against the accused petitioner for

demand of dowry and other alleged facts, then under

such circumstance, I feel if by imposing some

reasonable conditions the accused petitioner is enlarged

on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
-7-

7. Keeping in view of the above said facts and

circumstances, the petition is allowed and the accused

petitioner is enlarged on bail on the following

conditions:

1. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
Only) with two sureties for the satisfaction of
the trial Court.

2. He shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence in any manner.

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

Sd/-

JUDGE

VBS

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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