IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.144/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Radha A.J., 31 years, W/o Moulesh (Accused No.3) 2. Sri Moulesh, 34 years, S/o Narasimhaiah, (Accused No.4) Both are R/at Veerapura Village, Kuduru Hobli, Magadi Taluk Ramanagara Dist. – 561101 …Petitioners (By Sri R.C.Rajanna, Adv.) AND:
State by Rajagopalanagara Police Rept. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex Bengaluru – 01 (Complainant) ...Respondent (By Sri M Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their in Cr.No.621/2018 registered by Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 304(B) and 498(A) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(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 The present petition has been filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.621/2018 of Rajagopalanagara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act (“Act” for short).
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. On service of notice the complainant is also present. He submitted his say through High Court Government Pleader.
4. The gist of the complaint is that eleven months prior to the death of deceased, she was married to accused No.1. After the marriage, she was living in a matrimonial home along with her mother-in-law, sister-
in-law and accused No.1. Her second sister-in-law and her husband used to come and abuse her and ill-treat her. In that context, the case was registered in the Police Station and also Police called them and warned. In that light, on 25.11.2018 at about 8.20 p.m. deceased informed over the phone to her sister Amrutha that accused No.1-husband assaulted her by pressing her neck, thereafter, by throwing the saree asked her to go and die. Thereafter, at about 11.45 p.m. the complainant received a phone call that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging. Immediately they came and noticed that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging, they suspected that the accused No.1 who is the husband of the deceased and her in-laws have ill- treated and harassed her and as such she has committed suicide. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that prior to the marriage with accused No.1, the deceased had filed a maintenance petition against her first husband in Malur Court, a maintenance amount has also been awarded and the first husband of the deceased has also filed a criminal petition before this Court challenging the said order. He further submitted that accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing separately at Veerapura Village, she got married about 7-8 years back and there is nothing to substantiate that they were present at the time of alleged incident, ill-treated and harassed the deceased. He further submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 25.11.2018 and the complaint has also registered suspicion and no other overt acts are also stated soon before the death. He further submitted that the complaint and other materials do not attract the provisions of Act and as such the bar under Sections 18 & 18A of the Act shall not come in the way to grant an anticipatory bail to the petitioners. There is no specific overt act in so far as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. Petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that soon before the death the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 suspected the deceased and Police have also warned them. He further submitted that the deceased has also written on the wall and in the said death note the deceased has clearly mentioned that the accused persons are responsible for her death. It is further submitted that the petitioners/accused No.1 and 2 never used to live along with deceased and also with the accused persons. He further submitted that immediately prior to the death of the deceased she informed her sister Amrutha over the phone about the ill-treatment and assault committed by the accused persons. He further submitted that accused No.1 assaulted with rod and thereafter, pressed her neck and thrown the saree and asked her to go and die. There is ample material to connect the accused persons in the alleged offences. He further submitted that Section 18A of the Act clearly bars to grant the anticipatory bail. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced along with the petition.
8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials it shows that there is no allegations made in respect of the attraction of the provisions of the Act. On close reading of the complaint, no where it has been stated that there is atrocity committed on the deceased.
9. It is well settled principles of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another reported in (2018) 6 SCC 454, that there is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide.
10. In the complaint no where the provisions of the Act are attracted. In that light this Court can entertain the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
11. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint and other materials it shows that when the deceased called her sister Amrutha, again it has been stated that her husband assaulted and pressed her neck and by throwing the saree he asked her to go and die and immediately thereafter, she has committed suicide by hanging, that itself clearly shows that accused No.1 soon before the death ill-treated and harassed her and because of the ill-treatment and harassment by accused No.1 the deceased has committed suicide. Even the presence of accused No.1 is also stated in the complaint, no other material is found as against the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4. Taking into the consideration of the above facts and circumstances it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4.
12. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 are granted anticipatory bail. In the event of their arrest, petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.621/2018 of Rajagopalanagara Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 304 and 498(A) read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act shall be released subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners/accused No.3 and 4 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
3. He shall mark his attendance once in 15 days between 10.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m., till the charge sheet is filed.
4. He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
Sd/- JUDGE GJM