Karnataka High Court Thippesh vs State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3125 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
Aged about 34 years
Driver of profession
(By Sri.Prasad B.S, Advocate)
State of Karnataka
By Holehonnur Police Station
(By Sri.K.R.Keshava Murthy, Additional SPP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.56/2014 of Holehonnur Police Station, Shomiga District for the offence p/u/s 498(A) and 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for orders this day, the court made the following: ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
2. The petitioner is said to be accused No.2, on the basis of a complaint, alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. It is alleged that accused No.1, – the brother of the petitioner, had fallen in love with one Shruthi and that they had eloped. The complainant is said to have lodged a missing complaint and later found that she had eloped with the brother of the petitioner – Umesh. Their presence was secured by the police, and they were said to have been married in the police station itself, with the police playing match makers, in the presence of other villagers who had undertaken that they would ensure the welfare of Shruthi. Thereafter, it is alleged that the family of Umesh and the brother of the petitioner had started to harass Shruthi for dowry and -3-
that had led to her committing suicide. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint, the petitioner has been arraigned as one of the accused along with his brother.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the deceased and his brother were very much in love and due to desperation and frustration that the parents of the deceased did not like the marriage, had driven Shruthi, into deep depression and possibly that had led to her committing suicide and that there was a demand for dowry is imaginary and to the knowledge of the petitioner, there was no such demand ever made. In this background, the petitioner had approached the Court below, seeking anticipatory bail which had been denied, on the ground that the allegations are of a serious nature and that the marriage of Shruthi being of recent origin, a presumption would arise against the accused. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. Given the circumstances of the case, the petitioner being involved in harassing and making demands for dowry may not be sustainable. In any -4-
event, that would have to be established at the trial. Therefore, not withstanding the view taken by the Trial Court, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail.
6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission.