IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.5094/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri Muddana Venkata Ramesh S/o Satyanarayana Aged about 32 years No.171, 5th Main, B.Narayanapura, Bengaluru-36.
(By Sri J.R.Shanthala, Advocate) AND:
State by Mahadevapura Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP) …Petitioner …Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.167/2018 (C.C.No.53917/2019) of Mahadevapura Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B r/w. Section 34 of IPC and Sections 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 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.167/2018 (S.C.No.1152/2019) of Mahadevapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that the daughter of complainant, viz., Tulasi Mahalakshmi was given in marriage to Muddanna Venkata Ramesh (accused No.1) on 16.03.2017 and subsequently, on 19.01.2018, she committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of her husband and in the light of the same, a complaint was registered in UDR No.15/2018. Thereafter, the father of deceased filed a complaint alleging that deceased committed suicide because of the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons for demand of dowry. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.167/2018 for the above said offences.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the marriage of the deceased and the petitioner/accused took place on 16.3.2017 and thereafter they shifted to Bengaluru and at the time when they shifted to Bengaluru, the jewellary which was given in the marriage has been taken over by the parents of the deceased. It is her further submission that the alleged incident has taken place on 19.1.2018 and at the time when the Tahasildar recorded the statement of Vinayaka- the brother of the deceased, he has categorically stated in his statement before the Tahasildar that the petitioner/accused and the deceased were residing cordially and deceased sister used to call him every day over the phone and they were happily leading the life and petitioner/accused was also look after well and she has been put for IT training. He has also stated that because of frustration she has committed suicide without telling to the husband of the deceased and they are not suspecting anybody and they requested to give the dead body after post mortem and thereafter they conducted the last rituals and the complaint has been registered only on 22.2.2018. It is her further submission that when UDR case was registered there was no allegation of either demand of dowry or any gold, but subsequently after deliberation and discussion a false complaint has been registered. It is her further submission that earlier the petitioner/accused has approached this Court for release him on bail, but this Court has given a liberty to file a fresh bail application after the charge sheet is filed. Now the charge sheet has been filed and all the material which has been collected is made available and in the said material there is no allegation as against the petitioner/accused for having demanded the dowry. He is ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds she prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the complainant is the father of the deceased, in his statement he has specifically made the allegation that prior to the marriage there was a demand and in pursuance of the same he has given huge gold and cash and thereafter there was ill-treatment and harassment caused by the petitioner/accused and the deceased has committed suicide by hanging in the house of the petitioner/accused and the petitioner/accused has not given any explanation as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It is his further submission that there is a presumption that if the death takes place within seven years after the marriage, it is presumed to be a dowry death. He further submitted that the petitioner/accused was absconding and subsequently he was surrendered before the Court. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the charge sheet material, the statement of Vinayaka- the brother of the deceased has been recorded on 22.2.2018 and therein he has stated that the petitioner/accused and the deceased are living cordially and every day she used to call and they were living happily and she also used to inform that the petitioner/accused is also looking after well and he has put her for IT training and she is going for the training and he has also further stated that he is not suspecting anybody. Even the records also indicate the fact that the deceased died due to frustration and the post mortem report also supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused.
8. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the presumption is there under the law and the accused has not come up with any explanation as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, even the statement of the brother of the deceased itself goes to show that she was prejudiced because of pressure of work and as such she has committed suicide and as on the date of the alleged incident the petitioner/accused was also not present in the house. Under the said facts and circumstances that too when already charge sheet has been filed, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.167/2018(SC No.1152/2019) of Mahadevapura police station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner 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..
ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
iii) He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police once in a month on every first between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.
iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
*AP/-
Sd/- JUDGE