IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6412/2018 BETWEEN:
Girisha A.P., S/o Paramesh Gowda, Aged about 24 years, R/at Near Beeralingeshwara Temple, Ambale Village, Ambale Hobli, Chickmagaluru Taluk, Chickmagaluru District – 577 101.
(By Sri.Karthik Yadav U., Advocate for Sri.S.K.Venkata Reddy, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Women Police Station, Tumakuru – 572 101.
Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Rajashekhar @ Raju, S/o Chikkanna, Aged about 39 years, R/o Ambale Village, ...Petitioner Ambale Hobli, Chickmagaluru Taluk, Chickmagaluru District – 577 101.
…Respondents (By Sri. M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP for R1; R2 is served but unrepresented) 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.87/2017 (Spl.C.No.202/2018) of Women Police Station, Tumakuru District for the offences P/U/S 498A, 304B, 114 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(ii)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.87/2017 of Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A and 114 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, 1989.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Though the notice is served to the complainant, he remained unrepresented.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the father of the deceased is the complainant in this case wherein, he has stated that in the month of January, 2017 the deceased left the house and a police complaint was lodged; she returned on 28.04.2017 and on enquiry, it is revealed that she has already married with accused No.1 in a temple; on the same day, i.e. on 28.04.2017, the marriage was registered in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Chikkamagaluru. The relatives of accused No.1 were opposing the marriage on the ground that the deceased belongs to Adi-Karnataka community and the bridegroom belongs to Kuruba community. Therefore, relatives of the bridegroom were instigating him to harass and ill-treat the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. She also revealed the same to her father over phone stating that she was being ill-treated at the instance of other-in-laws and on the next day, at about 10 a.m., one Prakash called him over the phone stating that Kavya had committed suicide by hanging. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging the complaint. Already the charge sheet has been filed and there is no allegation as against the petitioner/accused No.1 to show that he has ill-treated and harassed for demand of dowry. It is further submitted that no complaints have been registered against the petitioner/accused No.1 for ill-treatment and harassment. Further it is submitted that the Post- Mortem report and the opinion of the Doctor indicates that except the strangulation mark no other injuries were found. It is further submitted that where the petitioner/accused No.1 and the deceased were residing, as it is a inter-caste marriage, the parents of the petitioner/accused did not visited the place where she resided. In that context, she committed suicide. It is submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is ready to abide by any conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that on perusal of the entire material evidence, it clearly go to show that soon before the death, there was ill-treatment and harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.1. Even one day prior to the alleged incident, the deceased telephoned the complainant and informed about the ill- treatment and harassment caused on her and even, she expressed that she is thinking whether to live or not to live. It is further submitted that the owner of the said house has been examined, he has categorically stated that the petitioner/accused No.1 used to ill-treat and harass the deceased and has also advised the petitioner stating that she is pregnant and he has not to torture her for silly reasons. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is the main accused for the alleged incident which has taken place. When death has taken place in the house of the accused No.1, under Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is the petitioner/accused No.1, who has to explain under what circumstance the death of the deceased has taken place. But he has not come forward with any reasons/explanations. Under such circumstance, the petitioner/accused No.1 is not entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that since from the date of registration, the petitioner/accused No.1 is absconding and he is not available for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the records, it indicates that there are allegations as against the petitioner/accused No.1. In so far as accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned, the only allegation which has been made is that they have instigated accused No.1 and because of their instigation, accused No.1 used to ill- treat and harass the deceased as such, this Court has released the accused Nos.2 to 7. The ground of parity is not applicable to the present fact of the case. On careful perusal of the records, there are ample material to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 has ill-treated and harassed the deceased for demand of dowry. As a result of the same, she has committed suicide by hanging in the house of the petitioner/accused No.1 and he has also not come up with any specific case that under what circumstance she has committed suicide by hanging.
8. Under the said facts and circumstance, I feel that it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to release him on anticipatory bail. In that light, petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is kept open to file a fresh petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. If he surrenders, in that event the trial Court is directed to without considering the above said observations on merits, the bail application can be considered.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS