IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF MARCH, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5598 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Swamy Gowda,
S/o. Ramegowda,
Aged about 32 years,
R/at Alanahalli Village,
Periyapatna Taluk,
Mysuru District – 45.
… Petitioner
(By Sri.Pratheep K.C., Advocate)
AND
The State of Karnataka,
Represented by Periyapatna Police Station,
Mysuru District.
…Respondent
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.127/2015 (S.C.No.306/2015) of Periyapatna Police
Station, Mysuru District, for the offence p/u/s 498A, 302
r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
2. The 1st accused in S.C.No.306/2015 on the
file of the V Addl. District Sessions Judge, Mysuru,
has sought for bail. Briefly, the contents of the
complaint are that the complainant’s daughter Radha
was married to this petitioner. The marriage took place
at Dharmastala. After the marriage, the petitioner used
to harass his wife for bringing dowry from her parents
house. Being unable to bear the torture the petitioner’s
wife used to go to her parents house and stay there for
some time. The parents also made some efforts to
advise this petitioner. Once when the petitioner’s wife
had gone to her parents house being unable to bear the
torture, on 01.06.2015, the petitioner went to the
complainant’s house and took his wife back to his
house. On the same night, this petitioner and his
3
parents caused her death by strangulating her with a
rope.
3. The Sessions Court rejected the bail
application.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues
that the other two accused have been released on bail.
Investigation is completed and the case is now
committed to the Sessions Court for trial. The
petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be
imposed on him and therefore this petition be allowed.
5. The HCGP opposes the grant of bail by
arguing that this petitioner is the main accused and in
the complaint there are allegations of demanding dowry
and subjecting the deceased to harassment.
6. On perusing the complaint and other
materials placed before the Court, it is found that there
are no eye-witnesses to the incident. The entire case
4
rests on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the
prosecution has to prove all the circumstances. Since,
the case is already committed to the Sessions Court and
that the other two accused have been released on bail, I
find that this accused is also entitled to bail on the
ground of parity. Therefore, the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
Petitioner shall be released on bail on obtaining
from him a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh
only) and two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction
of the trial Judge. The petitioner is subjected to the
following conditions:
1) He shall regularly appear before the Court
during trial.
2) He shall not threaten the witnesses and
tamper the prosecution evidence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sv
