IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRL.P. NO. 7473/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI. A.C. MANJUNATH S/O. CHIKKA NARASHIMAIAH AGED 36 YEARS, R/AT. NO.22, 2ND FLOOR KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR BENGALURU – 560 094 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. DIWAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE SANJAYNAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 002 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ROHITH B J, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO. 136/2019 REGISTAERED BY SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A AND 304-B OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.11.2019 COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER’, THIS DAY K.N. PHANEENDRA, J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.1 in Crime No.136/2019 on the file of the respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that:
Smt. Prajwala, the 4th daughter of the complainant Sri Narasimhappa of Shravandana Halli in Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkuru District, was given in marriage to the petitioner in the year 2014 i.e., on 20.08.2014. The petitioner was a practicing Advocate and after the marriage from 2014, the husband and wife lived happily with each other. It is stated in the complaint itself that the petitioner and the deceased were residing together in Sanjaya Nagar, KEB Layout, Bengaluru. At the time of marriage, the petitioner has accepted that he would allow for continuation of the education of his wife Prajwal, who intend to do her M.Sc., and he also in fact got her admitted to M.S.Ramaiah College to continue her M.Sc., studies. After she started going to the college, the petitioner started suspecting her fidelity and conduct and also it is alleged thereafter, all the accused started ill-treating and harassing her in demand of some more money, site or a house in favour of the petitioner. There were lot of compromise talks between the parties on several occasions and the deceased went to her parental house and stayed there for 1 or 1½ months and from there itself, she attended the college and after compromise, they again started living together. But, in the year 2019, in the morning at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of the petitioner.
4. On the above said allegations, the police have registered a case and investigating the matter. Other accused have already been released on bail. The petitioner has also approached the Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail. His bail petition came to be dismissed in Crl.Misc. No.8189 of 2019 dated 26.09.2019.
5. On perusal of the complaint averments itself, the husband and wife were living together happily and thereafter she became pregnant and further, the petitioner himself has got her admitted to M.S. Ramaiah College for continuing her M.Sc., studies and till that point of time, there was no allegation of demand of dowry etc., After the deceased started going to college, suspicion arose in the mind of the petitioner about the conduct of her wife thereby there was some damage to the mutual trust between them. Perhaps that may be the real reason which frustrated the relationship between the parties. In this context, lot of compromise talks were held for re-union of the husband and wife. Therefore, the sensitiveness and conduct of the victim might have also played a major role in she committing suicide. Therefore, at this stage, that cannot be considered by this court and the same have to be traversed during the course of full-dressed trial.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded for releasing the accused on bail on the above facts. He contends that, the accused is an Advocate, he is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation and also appear before the court on all the future hearing dates, abide by any of the conditions imposed and ready to offer security or surety for his appearance. Hence, with all these reasons, he prayed to release the accused on bail.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the death occurred within five years of marriage and there is a specific allegation with regard to the demand of dowry and the death occurred in the house of the petitioner. Therefore, all these factors have to be taken into consideration. The accused knowing fully well the consequences of his act, never cared for law. He ill-treated and harassed his wife. Therefore, his bail petition has been rightly rejected by the Sessions Court and this Court has to reject this bail petition.
8. In the wake of the above said arguments, I have carefully examined the entire materials on record. The father of the deceased has categorically stated about the conduct of the accused and the victim in the complaint itself as noted supra as to what happened and how they were living together after the marriage. There is no dispute that there was any demand or any money being given at the time of the marriage and there was any force for giving any items except 25 grams of gold to the bridegroom. It is stated that they have given 50 grams of gold to their daughter and 25 grams of gold chain to the petitioner and spent Rs.10,00,000/- for performing the marriage. After about three years, she became pregnant and for the purpose of delivery, the parents took her to their house and conducted some religious function and thereafter, she gave birth to a child. In fact, after she begot the child, she requested the accused that she want to continue her studies. Therefore, she joined M.S. Ramaiah College and infact the accused himself has made all arrangements to her to continue her studies. Therefore, it shows that from 2014 to 2018, there was no differences between the husband and wife till she had chosen to go to the college, to continue her studies.
9. After she joined the college, the differences started between the husband and wife as the petitioner started suspecting her fidelity and conduct as he ascertained that there were lot of messages and phone calls to her mobile. After 2018, only it is alleged that he has started demanding money or site or house. This particular aspect of demand is to be established during the course of trial as to how it abruptly started from 2018. Further, there was another ground for alleged ill-treatment stated with reference to conduct and fidelity of the deceased. The complaint also shows that in the year 2019, only the allegations of demand of money, house or site started from the petitioner and in this context, he demanded for divorce and assaulted her with a screen rod in the month of April, 2019 and that she was prevented from going to the college. Thereafter, she went to her parents house and for a period of 1½ months, she stayed there and after compromise, she came back to the house of the petitioner. From April, 2019, till her death what transpired in the house of the accused is not categorically stated and what she was telling about the petitioner is not fully forthcoming. Abruptly, on 8.8.2019, the deceased telephoned to her parents that she was visiting her parental house so as to go to a temple on Saturday. But on the morning of 9.8.2019 she told that her husband told her not to go to her parents house and there was some quarrel between them. In this context, she appears to have committed suicide in the house of her husband.
10. The records produced by the learned High Court Government Pleader also shows that earlier, on the previous day she has threatened the petitioner and other family members with dire consequences of committing suicide in order to implicate them into a criminal case. He informed the police in this regard and the police have recorded the same in the NCR No.276/2019 i.e., on 3.8.2019 and he has also stated that she herself slapped him etc., On the same day at about 11.20, he personally went to the Police Station and stated that she is threatening to commit suicide. She also informed the same to her father on 10.8.2019, that the petitioner might had given a complaint against her in Sanjayanagar Police, then her father advised her nothing to worry, they will come and solve the problem. Just prior to the incident which took place on 10.8.2019 in the afternoon, because of some quarrel between the husband and wife, it appears, the incident has taken place. Whether it was only due to demand of any dowry as stated in the complaint or due to any other mis-understanding between the husband and wife, that particular aspect has to be thrashed out during the course of full-dressed trial.
11. Perusing the entire materials on record, as the husband and wife lived happily with each other till 2018, for a period of more than 4 years and only after she joined the college for continuing her studies because of her alleged mis-conduct and suspicion with regard to her fidelity, whether the differences arose between the husband and wife which resulted in the death of the deceased is also one more aspect to be taken note of by the court while considering the merits of the case.
12. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that when doubtful circumstances are available in the complaint itself, till the case is thrashed out during the course of full-dressed trial, the petitioner who is a practicing Advocate who has assured this court that he would co-operate with the investigation, appear before the court on all the future hearing dates, and abide by all the conditions, in my opinion, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain stringent conditions. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.136/2019 of Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC, pending on the file of VIII Addl. CMM Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation, and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed or for a period of three months whichever is earlier.
v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in 15 days on any Sunday between 10.00 am and 5.00 pm., before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
PL* Sd/- JUDGE