IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7263/2018 BETWEEN:
Kiran Kumar S/o. Late Dhruvakumar Aged about 28 years R/at Hangralli Village Halekote Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk Hassan District – 34. ...Petitioner (By Sri Pratheep K.C., Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Rep. Holenarasipura Town Police Station Hassan District Represented by its State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri.M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.189/2017 of Holenarasipura Town Police Station, Hassan for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking to release him on bail in Crime No.189/2017 of Holenarasipura Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that the deceased studied BBM and thereafter she has fallen in love with petitioner and they got married by registering the marriage in Sub Registrar office. It is further alleged that the petitioner herein was demanding dowry in the form of gold and cash and he demanded cash of Rs.1 lakh and the same was not paid by the deceased. On 05.06.2017 at about 11.00 p.m., when the deceased was about to take food, the petitioner/accused No.1 slapped her and committed murder of the deceased and thereafter he attempted to transport the said body by putting into a gunny bag. When he failed to do so, he left the body in the house and flood away from the place of occurrence. After came to know the said fact, the complainant filed the complaint. Based on which a case has been registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier he has moved the bail application. In this case neighboring witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and as such the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is languishing in the custody since 2017 i.e., more than one year and no purpose would be served if he is kept in prison. He further submitted that petitioner is ready to abide by conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays 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 there is ample materials as against the petitioner/accused No.1 to show that he has caused the death of the deceased by smothering and the matter has to be adjudicated and decided only at the time of the trial and no grounds have been made out to allow the petition. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other materials, the deceased died a unnatural death in matrimonial home and it is admitted fact that petitioner/accused No.1 and the deceased were staying in the said house. If so, under what circumstances, the death has taken place is not properly explained by the petitioner as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. There is presumption under Section 113(B) of Indian Evidence Act and also as per Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, the accused has to explain. In the absence of any such material and only because the neighboring witnesses have turned hostile, it cannot be held that there is no prima facie material as against the petitioner/accused No.1. Under such circumstances, I feel that it is not the case to entertain the petition and release petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
The above observations will not come in the way of final disposal of the case.
nms Sd/- JUDGE