Karnataka High Court Vasanthachari vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2014 :BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2743/2014
S/O. LATE DHARMACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WIND POWER WORKER,
R/AT SIRAMAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK,
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE – 577 001. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI.KAMADALLI MANJULADEVI RAMAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
RURAL POLICE STATION,
HADADI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE – 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SHRI.B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.124/2014 OF DAVANAGERE RURAL P.S., DAVANAGERE, FOR THE 2
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the State.
2. The petitioner is one of the accused along with his brother, his sister-in-law and their children. It transpires that, the petitioner’s wife had committed suicide. On the complaint by his mother-in-law, the police have registered a case against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
3. All the accused have been enlarged on bail. Some of the accused have been granted anticipatory bail. However, the petitioner’s bail petition has been rejected on the ground that the allegations against him are serious and therefore, he is not entitled to bail. The allegations made by 3
the mother-in-law is not on a first hand account of the alleged harassment and ill-treatment by the petitioner and is only on the allegation that, she had received information from her daughter during her life time, about constant harassment for money, beyond this there is no other incriminating material that is available.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would point out: Firstly, that in the complaint itself it is revealed that, there was no dowry paid at the time of the marriage and there is only an allegation of a demand for dowry. Secondly, it is also pointed out that, there are no statements of any neighbourers of the petitioner that, there was constant harassment and ill-treatment of the deceased. Thirdly, it is pointed out that the deceased was given to suicidal tendencies and she had on an earlier occasion tried to kill herself by jumping into a river and she was saved by the petitioner and his brother. They had informed the complainant on this. Therefore, only on the mere allegation by the mother-in-law that the petitioner had demanded dowry to mechanically implicate the entire 4
family on the allegations of such harassment would not by itself lend gravity to the case and therefore, seeks enlargement on bail.
5. From the facts and circumstances and in the absence of any incriminating material to indicate that the deceased constantly harassed by the petitioner, it cannot be presumed that, she had been driven to commit suicide by the petitioner. Therefore, the offences alleged would have to be established at the trial.
6. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of `40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) with a solvent surety for a like sum subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses;
(ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required 5
and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer;
(iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly and;.
(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.