IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9718/2018 BETWEEN:
Sri Raju Reddy S/o Nanjundappa Devanga by Caste Shivanagere Village Hiriyur Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk Chitradurga District-577 598 (By Sri B. Ravindra, Advocate) AND:
State by Gubbi Police Gubbi, Gubbi Taluk Tumakuru District Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building ...Petitioner Bengaluru-560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri H.S.Chandramouli, SPP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.266/2018 of Gubbi Police Station, Tumakuru, for the offence punishable under Section 304B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code 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 This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No.266/2018 of Gubbi Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1 on 01.07.2018 by giving some gold ornaments and a cash of Rs.8 lakhs. It is further alleged that the petitioner along with the other persons started ill-treatment and harassment for demand of additional dowry. It is further alleged that accused No.1 threatened her with dire consequences. The said fact used to be informed by deceased to her parents over phone and she came to her parental house for celebration of festivals at that time, petitioner also visited and there was some altercation took place. As a result, a complaint came to registered on 27.09.2018 for ill-treatment and harassment. The said matter was also resolved between them and the petitioner/accused No.1 joined along with deceased. It is further alleged that thereafter, the petitioner/accused No.1 and other accused persons continued to ill-treat and harass the deceased. On 15.10.2018, when the deceased was in her parental house, accused No.1 came and an altercation took place between them. It is further alleged that the parents’ of the deceased had been out of the house and when they came at about 8.45 a.m. at that time, accused No.1 was sitting infront of the door and when the complainant enquired about his daughter for which, accused No.1 replied that the deceased inside the bath room to take bath. When the complainant’s mother opened the door of bath room, she found that the deceased has committed suicide. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no demand for additional dowry and even the records clearly go to show that prior to the marriage, there was no demand of dowry. It is further submitted that the deceased has come to her parents’ house and no specific overt-acts have also been made against the petitioner. The said complaint is a typed complaint and in the said compliant, omnibus allegations have been made against all the persons that where, how and in what manner the ill-treatment and harassment has been caused to the deceased, is not mentioned in the complaint. It is further submitted that earlier, the deceased was not willing to lead the marital life with accused No.1. Though the father of the deceased and others conducted panchayat, there also she has been advised and even on the date of alleged incident, the father of the deceased told the deceased to join with accused No.1. In spite of that, she has committed suicide by hanging. It is further submitted that accused Nos.2 to 4 have already been released on bail, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that already charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is working as a teacher in the Government Department and there is no chance of he being fleeing away from the justice. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently argued and submitted that the records go to show that earlier to the alleged incident, harassment and ill-treatment was there and a complaint was registered on 27.09.2018. It is further submitted that if the contents of the complaint and other material are taken into consideration, it clearly goes to show the fact that the deceased died due to ill-treatment and harassment caused by the petitioner. Further it is submitted that the death has taken place in the house of parents at that time the petitioner was present. At that time, she has committed suicide and no other persons were present in the said house. Under such circumstance, as per Section 106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 he has to explain what has been transpired between the deceased and accused at the time of alleged incident. In the absence of such explanation, presumption has to be drawn that it is the accused, who has committed the said offence. It is further submitted that petitioner has quarreled with the deceased and because of the same, she has not been ready to live with him and she has committed suicide by hanging. Therefore, there is ample material to connect the petitioner to the alleged crime. 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 both the parties and perused the records.
7. The charge sheet has already been filed. On close scrutiny of the material, it discloses the fact that it is not in dispute that the deceased has committed suicide by hanging. Even it is not in dispute that at the time when she committed suicide, accused No.1 was in the house and her parents were not in the house. It has come in the records that since from the marriage, there was some altercation taking place between the deceased and accused No.1. Even the records indicates that the panchayat was held and the matter was reached up to the police station there also, it has been amicably settled and the deceased has been sent back. When the alleged incident has taken place within 7 years of the marriage, that too, when accused No.1 was present when she committed suicide in the house of her parents, under such circumstance, the Provisions of Section106 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 will come in the way that the accused has to explain, but the accused has not come up with any explanation under what circumstance the alleged incident has taken place. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that accused Nos.2 to 4 have already been released on bail under the similar facts and circumstance, on the ground of parity, he is also entitled to be released on bail. But the facts and circumstances stand different in so far as accused No.1 is concerned, therefore no parity can be exercised. Taking into consideration of above facts and circumstance, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner/accused No.1 on bail. Hence, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VBS