IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7650/2017 BETWEEN:
Naveen H.
S/o Hombegowda, Aged about 32 years, R/at 13/31, 4th Cross, Thavarekere Extension, Mandya Town – 571 403. Working as Software Engineer, HCL Technology, Jigani, Bengaluru – 560 039.
…Petitioner (By Sri.A.H.Bhagawan, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Rajajinagara Police, Represented by The State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
….Respondent (By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP.) This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.188/2017 of Rajajinagar police station, Bengaluru city, for the offence P/U/S 498A, 306 and 304B R/W Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for alleged offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent – police station, crime No.188/22017 and on the next day, in view of the further statement of the complainant, the offences under Section 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was also added in the case.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 made the submission that though it is a lengthy complaint but nowhere it is mentioned about any ill- treatment and harassment. He made the submission that only allegation in the original complaint is he was not loving his wife. Learned counsel also made the submission that on the very next day i.e., on 24.08.2017, the complainant gave further statement making allegations regarding the demand for dowry. Hence, he made the submission that it is the after thought and in fact there was no such demand. It is also his submission that the incident took place after two months eleven days from the date of the marriage. During this period, only one day the present petitioner stayed with her and three days the deceased stayed with the in-laws house and the rest of the period because of Ashadamasa she was staying with her parents only. Learned counsel made the submission that after the accused No.4 has been added in the case, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased.
4. She has also made the complaint to the Police Commissioner office, wherein the contents goes to show that the deceased was not willing to marry the present petitioner herein and prima facie, it goes to show, the marriage was against her will and wish against the present petitioner. Hence, learned counsel submitted that in view of these reasons, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner/accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that incident took place within two months and eleven days from the date of the marriage, he also made the submission that there was an incompatibility between the couple. The further submission is that the investigation is still going on. Hence, the present petition is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the order of the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application. So also perused the other documents produced by the counsel for the petitioner.
7. The complaint averments and as it is rightly submitted, it is a lengthy complaint. The only allegation as per the complaint is that the father of the deceased is the complainant wherein it is stated that the present petitioner was not loving his wife and that was the only reason assigned in the original complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the petitioner either he was demanding dowry or he was giving such ill-treatment and harassment for any other reasons. But, on the next day i.e., on 24.08.2017, further statement of complainant was recorded, wherein it is stated that at the time of the marriage, one gold chain, gold ring and clothes were given to him and so also mentioned that the present petitioner after the marriage was demanding the dowry and he was also insisting her to bring a car and get the house for the petitioner and it is mentioned by the complainant that he came to know from his wife and his eldest daughter. So, even this further statement is taken into consideration for appreciating the bail petition, it is not in the personal knowledge of the complainant about these things. So, his further statement regarding those things hearsay because his wife and daughter have stated so.
8. I have also perused the call detail copies which is voluminous, which goes to show that the couple were conversating each other every day, as it is mentioned as good morning and good night in between couple. It also prima facie goes to show that the couple were in a good terms and they were conversating each other apart from that, the alleged incident took place in the house of the parents only and not in the place of the present petitioner had he taken place in the house of the petitioner. It was the petitioner who could account the same and the reason for such incident. Petitioner contended in the bail petition that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offences and he has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, by imposing stringent conditions, he can be admitted to regular bail.
9. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Section 304B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent – police station, Crime No.188/2017 subject to the following conditions:
a. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
b. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
c. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-