IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3727/2019 Between:
1. Sri.Ravi Kumar.H.S, Son of Late Sannasiddaiah, Aged about 38 years, R/at 2nd Cross, Siddaiah Nagar, Hassan Town, Hassan District-573 201.
2. Sri.Kumara, Son of late Bujangaiah, Aged about 42 years, R/at Kalahalli Village, Hallimysore Hobli, Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District 573 211. ... Petitioners (By Sri.Kashinath.J.D, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, By Women Police Station, Hassan City, Hassan, Rep by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru. ... Respondent (By Sri.S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.30/2019 of Hassan Women Police Station, Hassan for the offence p/u/s.498-A, 323, 324, 307, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and u/s.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioners are seeking to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.30/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be the husband of the victim and petitioner No.2 is stated to be the brother-in-law of accused No.1. The case that is made out by the prosecution is that marriage between the petitioner and the complainant was solemnized about seven years prior to the date of complaint. It is further stated that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage. It is stated that a boy child was born from within the wedlock.
3. However, it is further stated that petitioner No.1 was harassing the complainant and had demanded dowry and differences had cropped up in the matrimonial relationship. Panchayat was held on number of occasions to settle the dispute between them. It is alleged that on 03.05.2013 at about 4:30PM when the complainant had returned back to the petitioners’ house after attending marriage of her brother, there was an altercation between the complainant and the accused. It is alleged that petitioner No.1 had tried to strangulate her and petitioner No.2 allegedly brought a veil and tried to strangulate her neck. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered and investigation is completed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that petitioner No.2 is a ‘D’ group employee in an aided educational institution and is staying away from the matrimonial house of petitioner No.1. It is further stated that complaint has been filed in light of the difference in matrimonial relationship. Even otherwise it is submitted that the nature of injuries made out in the discharge summary does not point out to any grievous injuries.
5. Taking note of the fact that petitioner No.1 and the complainant have been married for past seven years and admittedly, there was a difference in matrimonial relationship, the question of proof of offence is a matter for trial. As such, taking note of the nature of the injuries, no case is made out for custodial interrogation.
Petitioners are subjected to conditions in order to ensure their co-operation in the investigation. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioners under Sec. 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioners are enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.30/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall appear in person before the Investigating Officer in connection with Crime No.30/2019 within 15 days from today and shall 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 fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer and shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
(iii) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way, any witness.
(iv) The petitioners shall physically present themselves and mark thier attendance before the concerned Station House Officer once in week between10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of the final report.
(v) In the event of change of address, the petitioners to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vi) 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.
Sd/- JUDGE KA