IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.3178 of 2019 BETWEEN:
DHANANAJAYA REDDY J., S/O. LATE JAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.92/4, 1ST FLOOR, SANTHE BEED, VARTHUR, BENGALURU – 560 087.
(BY SRI H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY CHAMARAJANAGAR EAST POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI K.P. YOGANNA, HCGP) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.No.51 of 2019 OF CHAMARAJANAGAR EAST POLICE STATION, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 307, 323 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the notice with regard to filing of this petition has been served on to the complainant. In spite of service, the complainant has remained absent.
3. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in Crime No.51/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 323 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
4. The charge sheet has already been laid for the above said offences after thorough investigation. The petitioner has approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Earlier, the other accused Nos.2 to 4 have already approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.2921/2019 wherein, they were granted anticipatory bail.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the victim by name Anitha had married the petitioner herein on 13.11.2016 at Dharmasthala, which was a love marriage. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and 25 gms. of gold was taken by the petitioner as consideration of the marriage. In this background, it is alleged that after the marriage, they lived happily for some time. Thereafter, the petitioner was addicted to alcohol and started abusing her in filthy language. She was even forced for abortion of her pregnancy once and the petitioner also tried to kill her at one instance. It is alleged that the petitioner and other accused were demanding Rs.3.00 Lakh from her for the purpose of establishing a medical shop. In this background, it is alleged that on 18.09.2018, the victim has delivered a male child and on 12.01.2019, at about 12.30 p.m., all the accused persons went to the house of the complainant and abused her in filthy language by referring to her caste and also assaulted her etc. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition of the petitioner based on the allegations under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The records disclose that there is an allegation that all the accused persons abused her in filthy language by referring to her caste, but the other accused on the similar allegation have been released on bail by this Court.
6. Apart from the above, learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice that the incident had happened on 12.01.2019, but the complaint was lodged on 07.03.2019. There is an explanation for delay in the complaint itself by way of further statement of the complainant. Though there is an explanation, the same requires to be proved during the course of full-fledged trial. The entire charge sheet discloses that no other independent witness appears to have been present when the incident happened except the family members of the complainant, who belonged to the same caste. Therefore, during the course of evidence, it should be established that in the public view, abusive words referring to caste are used by the accused persons. Apart from the above, it is brought to the notice of this Court that there is a divorce petition pending in the Family Court. After receipt of notice in the said divorce petition by the complainant, it appears that the above said complaint has been lodged. In the above circumstances, at this stage, it creates a serious doubt as to whether there was any false implication or not. However, no such inference can be drawn. Further, the said allegations have to be proved during the course of full-fledged trial.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail so as to enable the parties to explore the possibility of settlement between themselves. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No. 51/2019 of Chamarajanagara East Police Station, Chamarajanagara District on following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and he shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the District jurisdiction without prior permission of the Court, till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE mv