IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4088/2019 BETWEEN MR. SUBRAHMANYA S/O SUBBARAYADU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/A NO.18/102 BANTHALA STREET, NANDYALA KARNOOL DISTRICT-518501 ANDHRA PRADESH – 518501.
(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR D, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION WILSON GARDEN BANGALORE-560001 REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE-560001 2. SMT HEMAVATHI W/O MR. HARI KIRAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/A NO.53, NIRMALA BUILDING, 1ST MAIN, NEAR AYYAPPA TEMPLE, SUDHAMANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560027.
(BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS 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.303/2017 OF JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 3(11), 3(10), 3(xi) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND U/S.498-A, 323, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Notice issued to the complainant-second respondent is served as per the submission of the learned HCGP and the complainant has remained absent. There is no representation.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the first respondent-State. Perused the records.
3. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in Crime No.303/2017 of Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, arising out of a private complaint filed by the complainant-respondent No.2 before the Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, in PCR No.34/2017 which was referred to the respondent-Police for investigation and report.
4. The main allegations in the complaint as well, in the charge sheet papers are that the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste i.e., Adi Karnataka by caste, accused Nos.1 to 4 belonged to Vyshya by community. The marriage between Accused No.1 and the complainant was a love marriage, knowing fully well about their castes and accused Nos.2 to 4 have also agreed for the said marriage. It is alleged that at the time of marriage some gold, silver and other household articles were given in consideration of the marriage and the marriage was performed on 16.05.2012. It is alleged that after the marriage, the accused persons demanded dowry of Rs.50,000/-. In the meantime, on 18.03.2013 the complainant gave birth to a girl child. The accused persons did not even go to see the said child and did not attend the naming ceremony of the said child. After confinement, the complainant went to Chennai and accused No.1 and the complainant stayed there for sometime. It is alleged that accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 often visited the said house and demanded for dowry, abusing the complainant in filthy language and referring to her caste and being frustrated, the complainant also made attempts to commit suicide by consuming sleeping tablets. In this context, it is alleged that the accused persons have committed the above said offences.
5. During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses CWs.5, 6 and 7. On careful perusal of the statements of all the witnesses, though they have made an omnibus statement that these petitioners were also abusing the complainant in filthy language and demanding dowry etc., they have not stated at what time, place and date actually those abusive words were used. Admittedly CWs.5, 6 and 7 are not the public, but they are the relatives of the complainant. Therefore, during the course of evidence, it has to be thrashed out whether any offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act is attracted or not. The other offences alleged are not so seriously punishable. Under the above said facts and circumstances, the main allegations are made against accused No.1, who is the husband of the victim lady, the accused Nos.3 and 4 who are none other than the close relatives of accused No.1, their names have also been incorporated in the complaint. The allegations made against the petitioner has to be strictly established beyond reasonable doubt during the course of full dressed trial. Under the above said facts and circumstances, I do not find any reasons to reject the bail petition. Hence the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner (A-4) shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.303/2017 of Jayanagara Police Station, Bengaluru City, subject to the following conditions:-
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within Ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission, for a period of two months or till the charge sheet is filed whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE JT/-