Karnataka High Court
Anjanappa K.V @ Anandha @ Anji vs State Of Karnataka By on 19 March, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1150/2014
BETWEEN:
Anjanappa K.V. @ Anandha @ Anji,
S/o. Venkatachalaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at, Kondashetty halli Village,
Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
Pin Code:561 204. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. Harish Kumar. M.R, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka by
Rajanukunte Police Station,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District,
Pin Code-561 201. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event
of his arrest in Cr. No.5/2014 of Rajanukunte P.S.,
Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)
R/W 34 of IPC.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of his arrest, he be released on bail of the offence punishable under Sections 304(B) read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.5/2014.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of the arguments, submitted that looking to the statement in the complaint itself, it goes to show that no ill treatment has been given by the petitioner to the deceased in connection with the dowry harassment. He submitted that it is only the contention of the complainant that through his elder sister, he came to know that the petitioner and his 3 parents were giving ill treatment to the deceased in connection with the dowry amount. The learned Counsel submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 have already been granted bail. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that the alleged incident has taken place within six months from the date of marriage of the petitioner with the deceased and it has taken place in the house of the petitioner when the deceased was leading her marital life. He also submitted that in the complaint, it is mentioned that at the time of marriage of the deceased the petitioner cash, gold and dress by way of dowry were given, the petitioner and his parents insisting the deceased to bring more amount from her parental place. Because of the ill treatment met out to the deceased, she has committed suicide in the house of her husband. The learned HCGP further made submission that the matter is still under investigation and the investigating officer has to collect some 4 more material and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record.
6. Certain facts are admitted and cannot be disputed that the death of the deceased has taken place within six months from the date of marriage and it has taken place in the house of the petitioner when she was leading her marital life. There is also an allegation in the complaint that the deceased was ill treated by the petitioner as well as by her in-laws insisting her to bring some more dowry from her parental place. Now the matter is still under investigation and the materials placed on record raise initial presumption that it is a dowry death falls under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. When the matter is still under investigation, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
5
7. In this regard, I am referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SAMUNDER SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1987 SC 737. Looking to all these aspects, I find no justification to allow this petition. It is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cs/-