IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7148 OF 2018 C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7121 OF 2018 IN CRL.P.NO.7148/2018 Between:
Sri.Ravinaika S.K., S/o Karinaika, Aged about 39 years, R/o N.Shettahalli Village, Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 107. ...Petitioner (By Sri K.A. Chandrashekara, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka By Periyapatna Police Station, Represented by the learned State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.292/2018 of Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru for the offences P/U/S 498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
IN CRL.P.NO.7121/2018 Between:
1. Sri. Karinaika, S/o late Bendanaika, Aged about 55 years, 2. Gowramma @ Gowrammanni, W/o Karinaika, Aged about 46 years, 3. Rajashekhar, S/o Karinaika, Aged about 20 years, All are R/o N.Shettahalli Village, Bettadapura Hobli, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysuru District – 571 107. ...Petitioners (By Sri K.A. Chandrashekara, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka By Periyapatna Police Station, Represented by the Learned State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri K.P.Yoganna, 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 Cr.No.292/2018 of Periyapatna Police Station, Mysuru for the offences P/U/S 498-A, 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Crl.P.No.7148/2018 is filed by the petitioner – accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail and Crl.P.No.7121/2018 is filed by petitioners – accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge them on bail in Crime No.292/2018 of Periyapatna Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent – State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the marriage of the deceased – Pallavi was performed with petitioner – accused No.1 on 17.06.2018. During the marriage, dowry was given, but inspite of the said dowry, the petitioners used to insist to bring some more dowry from the parental house. It is further alleged that they had sent the deceased to her parental house during ashada, at that time also there was a demand for money from the deceased. On 18.08.2018, at about 9.18 a.m, the deceased had sent a message alleging about the harassment meted out by her at the matrimonial home and subsequently on 20.08.2018 at about 7.16 a.m., complainant received a phone call from the aunt of the petitioners informing that pallavi had committed suicide. It is further alleged that when the parents of the deceased went to the spot and observed that there were no marks on the neck whereas, she had suffered injury over nose and chest and there are no signs of suicide. They refused to file complaint and also for the post mortem. It is further alleged that the other persons threatened the complainant and his relations not to file the complaint and thereafter, the body was culminated by burning and subsequently, complaint was registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged incident has taken place on 20.08.2018, but the complaint came to be filed on 25.08.2018 i.e., after five days. There is a delay in filing the complaint. He further submitted that in the presence of the complainant and other relatives of the deceased, the body has been burnt in the land belonging to the accused himself and at that time there were no suspicious circumstances. But subsequently, the complaint was given which is after thought. He further submitted that even by seeing the entire materials, it goes to show that the alleged incident taken place within a spur of movement and as such, the petitioner – accused No.1 was not having any intention to cause the death of the deceased. As such, the provision of Section 302 of IPC is not attracted. He further submitted that there is no material to show that there has been demand for dowry. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions imposed on them by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petitions and to release the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 on bail.
5 Per contra, learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that there is ample material to show that there was a demand for dowry and because of that, accused No.1 caused the death of the deceased – Pallavi. He further submitted that the petitioner – accused No.1 along with other accused persons has caused the death of the deceased which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He further submitted that the dead body was burnt in the land belonging to the accused himself that creates suspicious against the petitioners. He further submitted that there is a prima facie material to show that the accused persons have involved in heinous offences which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet material indicates that on the alleged date of incident when the galata took place between accused No.1 with the deceased, at that time she made a resistance and it is accused No.1 assaulted with hands on her cheeks and immediately, thereafter, she fell on the cot and she sustained injury to her nose and chest and immediately, she died. By going through the contents of the complaint it discloses the fact that the petitioner-accused No.1 was not having any intention to cause the death.
8. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioners-accused No.1 to 4 are ordered to be released on bail , it is going to meet the ends of justice.
9. In that light, petitions are allowed and the petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail so also petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 are enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.292/2018 of Periyapatna Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
2. Petitioners –accused Nos.2 to 4 are directed to surrender before the Court below within 15 days from today, failing which, the order automatically stands vacated.
3. Petitioners shall be regular in attending the trial.
4. Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
5. Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB