IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.4813/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. R.N.Manjunath, S/o. R.Narayana, Age: 34 years, 2. Sri. R.Narayana, S/o. R.Gopal, Age: 61 years, 3. Smt. R.Narayanamma @ Reddamma, W/o. R.Narayana, Age: 56 years, 4. Sri. R.Channappa, S/o. R.Gopal, Age: 54 years, 5. Sri. M.C.Somashekar, S/o. M.Chinnaraju, Age: 45 years, R/o 169, Bestara Street Cross, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560064.
6. Sri. Venkatesh R.N., S/o. R.Narayana, Age: 56 years, 7. Sri. R.Srinivasalu, S/o. R.Gopal, Age: 30 years, 8. Smt. R.Lalitha, W/o. R.Channappa, Age: 49 years, 9. Smt. R.Saraswathi, W/o. R.Srinivasalu, Age: 52 years, 10. Smt. Krishnamma, W/o. R.Gopal, Age: 83 yars, Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 10 are residents of No.1680, 1st Cross, 2nd Main, Kamakashamma Layout, Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560064. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Ravi B Naik, Senior Advocate for Smt. Vijetha R Naik, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, Through Yelahanka P.S., Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Building, Bengaluru-560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri. S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.100/2019 of Yelahanka P.S., Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 201, 323, 498A, 302 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 are seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest with respect to proceedings in Crime No.100/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 201, 323, 498A, 302 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the brother of the deceased on 12.06.2019 had lodged a complaint alleging that the deceased was done to death by the petitioners. The facts that come out from the complaint is that the complainant’s sister had married accused No.1 on 26.04.2012. It is further stated that at the time of marriage, gold ornaments, silver articles and cash were given and marriage was performed in a grand manner. It is stated that petitioner No.1 would harass the deceased calling upon her to bring dowry. It is stated that on 26.05.2016, the complainant was informed that the complainant’s sister was admitted to the hospital and was serious. It is stated that the complainant’s sister died and reason attributed in the Doctor Report is that ‘Death was due to obstruction of the windpipe’. A complaint came to be lodged on 12.06.2019, FIR was registered and investigation is in progress.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners points out that the inexplicable delay in lodging the complaint itself casts doubt as regards the version made out in the complaint. It is further submitted that the child from the wedlock has been looked after by petitioner No.1 and his family. It is submitted that petitioners are willing to subject themselves to interrogation and the complaint has been filed in a malafide manner for oblique purposes.
4. Taking note of the fact that the incident is allegedly stated to have occurred on 26.05.2016, there is nothing on record that would suggest any previous incident of alleged harassment by petitioner No.1 or his family prior to the alleged incident. In light of the unreasonable delay and also noting that the petitioners belong to a family engaged in business, their co-operation in the investigation could be ensured by way of suitable conditions. It is also to be noted that omnibus allegations have been made against ten accused including the grand mother of petitioner No.1, who is aged about 83 years, all of which is a matter to be proved during trial.
5. Case is made out for enlarging the petitioners on bail. Custodial interrogation may not be required, in light of the peculiar facts including the unreasonable delay in lodging of the complaint. Proof of offences is a matter that ought to be proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail.
6. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 are enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.100/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 201, 323, 498A, 302 read with 34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Each of the petitioners shall appear in person before the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No.100/2019 within 15 days from the date of release of the order and shall each execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way, any witness.
(iii) The petitioners shall physically present themselves and mark their attendance before the concerned Station House Officer, Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City once in a week between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the final report.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioners to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioners, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
In light of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 seeking for interim bail does not survive for consideration and does not call for any orders and the same is disposed of as having become redundant.
Sd/- JUDGE RB