IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3506/2019 Between:
Sri. Manjunath V S/o. Late Venkatesh, Aged about 37 years, R/at No.64/1, 2nd Main, 7th Cross, Opp. Ravinandana School, Kaveripura, Kamakshipalya, Basaveshwaranagara, Bengaluru 560 079. … Petitioner (By Sri. M. R. Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Madanayakanahalli Police, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, Bengaluru 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri. K. P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.155/2019 of Madanayakanahalli Police for the offences p/u/s 498A, 306 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with the proceedings in Crime No.155/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.04.2019, a case came to be registered on the basis of a complaint by the brother of deceased. It is stated that the deceased was married to the accused about ten years prior to the incident and it is alleged that he had been ill-treating the deceased and had confined the deceased at home without providing basic facilities for the past 15 days. It is further stated that there were continuous demands for dowry. It is alleged that the parents of the complainant had also committed suicide in light of the harassment of the petitioner. It is stated that on 11.04.2019 the deceased allegedly committed suicide. On the basis of the said incident, the complaint was lodged, FIR is registered and investigation is in progress.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that as regards the suicide of the parents of the deceased, no complaint has been filed and that proof of the offence is a matter for trial. He further submits that no case is made out for custodial interrogation. It is further submitted as the petitioner is a conductor in BMTC, he would co-operate with the investigation.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State submits that the grant of anticipatory bail would not arise and states that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that during investigation, the death note by the deceased has been recovered and for the purpose of complete investigation, the petitioner is required to subject himself to custodial interrogation.
5. Learned Government Pleader states that they would complete the custodial interrogation of the petitioner in an expeditious manner. Said statement is taken note of.
6. Taking note of the nature of offences alleged, contents of the detailed complaint including the alleged harassment of the petitioner as regards the parents of the deceased driving them to commit suicide, the plea of prosecution that custodial interrogation is required in light of the death note that is recovered and to complete the investigation, it is to be accepted. The right to investigate in light of the present incident ought not to be interfered with unduly. In light of recovery of death note, a case is made out for the petitioner to subject himself to custodial interrogation.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
VGR Sd/- JUDGE