IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2481/2019 BETWEEN:
Sri R Avinash s/o Sri A Rajanna Aged about 27 years r/a No.590 Ellumandamma Block SSA Road, Cholanayakanahalli R T Nagar Post, Bengaluru City Karnataka – 560032. .. Petitioner (By Sri C Shankar Reddy, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka By Hebbal Police Station Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent (By Smt.Namitha Mahesh B G, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2019 of Hebbal P.S., Bangalore for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This case is taken up out of turn on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s father is suffering from tuberculosis and replacement of kidney.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.25/2019 of Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B of IPC.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner got married with the deceased as a love marriage. Thereafter, they led marital life. On 11.2.2019 she stated that she is having stomach pain. Immediately, she was taken to Baptist Hospital and she was inpatient for two days. After two days, i.e. on 13.2.2019 at about 9.00 a.m., she died in the hospital. Subsequently, the Hebbal Police informed the said fact to the brother of the deceased and after coming to know the same, the complaint was filed and the same has been registered.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner got married with the deceased by loving her. Since there was no cordial relationship between them, there is no question of demanding dowry. He further submitted that there were no allegations against the petitioner/accused for having demanded dowry. After the marriage, the deceased got converted herself into Hindu religion. Even her name was also changed. He further submitted that there was no ill-treatment and harassment prior to the death of the deceased and no such complaint has been registered or informed to anybody. He further submitted that the deceased consumed poison, only because when the petitioner/accused questioned her about the manner in which she attended the function. Only because of that reason, she consumed poison. If bail is granted, he is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and also ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and grant anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued that since the accused is absconding, he is not available for further investigation and his mobile phone has been seized. She further submitted that the death of the deceased has taken place in her matrimonial house on account of physical and mental torture given by the accused for further dowry. As per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the petitioner/accused has to explain, as to under what circumstances, the deceased consumed poison. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which have been produced in this behalf.
8. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials collected during the course of investigation, prima facie makes out a case against the petitioner and there are sufficient/incriminating materials to implicate the petitioner in the crime. Un-disputably the deceased died on 13.2.2019 by consuming poison within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial house. The death of the deceased has not been properly explained. In the said circumstances, the investigation is still pending. Hence, I feel that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Therefore, the petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner/accused surrenders before the Court and apply for regular bail, the above observation will not come in the way of considering the said bail application.
Sd/- JUDGE Bkm.