Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Gowtham K R vs The State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|23 January, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9029 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Gowtham.K.R, S/o. Ramesh K.R, Aged about 21 years, R/o. Kanakapura Town, Near Vani Theater, Park Road, H.M.Doddi-573 102. …Petitioner (By Sri.Sumanth.L.Bharadwaj, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By J.J.Nagara Police, Kengeri Sub-Division, Bengaluru-560 018, Represented by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 010. …Respondent (By Sri.K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.227/2018 of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence p/u/s 306 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER This petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in Crime No.227/2018 of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station, Kengeri Gate Sub-Division for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader.
3. The genesis of the complaint are that the deceased was the daughter of the complainant and accused is her brother’s son. Her daughter and the accused were in love. One day, accused told the complainant that he will marry her daughter for which, she told that her daughter is too young and she is not ready to give her in marriage. She came back to Bengaluru along with her daughter. She came to know about the conduct of the accused and told that she is not ready to perform her daughter’s marriage with the accused, for which, the accused used to call her daughter and scold her in filthy language and also used to threaten her that he will see that she will not get married. It is further alleged that on 24.09.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioner called her daughter and scolded her in filthy language, for which, her daughter told her that she is unable to withstand the torture and ill-treatment. On 26.09.2018, when she was in the hospital, her husband called at about 8.30 p.m., and informed her that their daughter hanged herself in the hall. She immediately returned back to home and filed the complaint.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the deceased and the accused are relatives and they used to love each other and even the said fact was also informed to the complainant, but the complainant was not ready to give her daughter in marriage to the accused and as such, as a result of refusal of the marriage, she committed suicide. He is ready to abide by the any conditions that may be imposed and ready to offer sureties. Hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be released on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Govt. Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that it is only because of ill-treatment and harassment caused to the deceased, she committed suicide on 26.09.2018. He further submitted that the accused-petitioner used to scold the deceased in filthy language and threaten the complainant that he will kidnap her daughter and marry her and in that context, the deceased committed suicide. There is prima facie material against the petitioner. On this ground, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Govt. Pleader and perused the records.
7. On going through the records, the last call made by the petitioner is to the complainant. There is no material to connect that the petitioner-accused used to scold the deceased in filthy language and threaten her and even that the alleged incident has admittedly taken place on 26.09.2018 at 7.00 p.m., immediately prior to the said alleged incident no other overt-acts have been stated in this behalf. Be that as it may. The alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The only point for grant or rejection of bail is whether accused can be secured for the purpose of further investigation and trial.
8. In the light of the discussions made above, the Petition is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.227/2018 of Jagajeevanram Nagar Police Station, Kengeri Gate Sub-Division for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC subject to following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for like sum before the Trial Court;
ii) He shall not tamper with prosecution evidence directly or indirectly;
iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE bnv* ct-rg
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Gowtham K R vs The State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
23 January, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil