IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MRS JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3282 OF 2017 BETWEEN 1. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 34 YEARS 2. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O MARADAPPA AGED 67 YEARS 3. MUNIRAJ S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED 38 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF THORANAHALLI VILLAGE BYRANAHALLI POST KASABA HOBLI TALUK: MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT – 562 102 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.62/2017 OF AVALAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition insofar petitioner Nos.1 and 3 (Accused Nos.1 and 3) may be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition insofar as petitioners No.1 and 3 is dismissed as withdrawn.
2. Petitioner No.2 (Accused No.2 in the FIR) apprehends arrest by the respondent-Police in Crime No.62/2017 registered in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 304-B and 498-A r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
3. The allegation is, petitioner No.1 (Accused No.1 in the FIR) was married to the deceased for three years. During marriage, dowry in cash and kind was given to the bridegroom on demand. The first issue from the marriage did not survive. Subsequently, the accused persons (husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law) used to torture the deceased by demanding additional dowry and she was assaulted by them on one such occasion was sent to the maternal house and she stayed there for 2-3 months. Her mother had given a pair of gold ear studs and had sent her to the matrimonial home. But, she returned to the maternal house and stayed for 3-4 months. On 11.02.20117, the deceased went to the house of the accused, she was assaulted and abused by the accused and was forcibly sent to the maternal house. On the next day i.e., on 12.02.2017, she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations are vague. The petitioner No.2 is aged about 70 years, ailing with COPD problem and is not guilty of the offence. Death as occurred at the maternal house of the deceased and for the last one year, she was not staying in the house of the accused persons. He further submits that, if anticipatory bail is granted, petitioner undertakes to appear before the Investigating Officer and participate in the further investigation.
5. In the given circumstance, there is no impediment to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The petitioner No.2 is granted anticipatory bail in Crime No.62/2017 registered by the respondent-Police subject to the following conditions:
i) He shall forthwith appear before the respondent- Investigating Officer. In that event, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to interrogate him.
ii) He shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during further course of investigation.
iii) He shall not threaten the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.
The petition insofar as petitioners No.1 and 3 is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/- JUDGE ST