Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O Panchayya @ Pantayya Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201247/2016
Between:
1. Ramesh
S/o Panchayya @ Pantayya
Aged about: 25 years, Occ: Labour
R/o Vaddar Colony, Bidar
2. Ambika W/o Sharnappa
Aged about: 30 years, Occ: Labour
R/o Vaddar Colony, Bidar
... Petitioners
(By Sri Hanmanthraya Sindhol, Advocate)
And:
State of Karnataka
Through Mahila Police Station, Bidar
Represented by Government Pleader
... Respondent
(By Sri Prabhugouda S. Patil, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to release the petitioners on bail in Crime
No.27/2016 of Mahila Police Station, Bidar, pending before
the Additional District and Sessions Court at Bidar, for the
offences punishable under Section 498(a), 302, 304(b) r/w
34 of IPC and under Section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:-
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail in Crime No.27/2016 of Mahila Police Station, Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302, 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and also for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The sum and substance of the complaint, which has been filed on 14.07.2016 are that on 24.04.2016 the complainant performed the marriage of her youngest daughter Pramila with accused No.1 by giving Rs.55,000/- and 05 grams gold as dowry and thereafter she started living in her matrimonial house. When she was so staying, the petitioners started ill- treating and harassing the deceased to bring another sum of Rs.51,000/- paid by Telangana Government 3 under Kalyan Laxmi Yojana along with another sum of Rs.50,000/- from her mother. The same was informed by the deceased to the complainant and the complainant told that she is unable to arrange, as she is poor. Thereafter, again the ill-treatment, harassment and torture was continued and the same was again informed by the deceased to her mother, but on the date of the alleged incident she received a phone call at about 3.20 p.m. from her relatives informing that her daughter has committed suicide, hence, she rushed to the said place and after verifying, the present complaint came to be filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent-State.
4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the petitioners have not committed any offence alleged against them and 4 they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is contended that the deceased was not willing to lead the life with petitioner No.1-husband, since she was having some premarital relationship with another person and she used to call from the mobile of petitioner No.1 to the said person. It is also contended that there are inconsistencies in the complaint as well as the further proceedings. In the first instance, they have contended that they have murdered the deceased and thereafter it has been contended that the deceased has committed the suicide due to the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons. It is further contended that the petitioners are the permanent residents of Bidar town and they have got both movable and immovable properties, therefore, there is no chance of they being absconded. It is further contended that if the petitioners are released on bail, they are ready to abide by the conditions to be imposed by this Court and 5 they are ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition.
5. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the petitioners have committed a serious offence of dowry death, which is a social evil. He has also contended that the post mortem report clearly discloses the fact that because of adequate ill-treatment the deceased committed suicide by hanging, the accused persons are the main accused and the said death has taken place in her matrimonial house. He further contended that already charge-sheet has been filed. At this juncture, if the petitioners are released on bail, there is likelihood of they being tampering with the prosecution witnesses, they may abscond and they may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 6
6. I have gone through the copy of the FIR, complaint and other material produced along with the petition.
7. As could be seen from the complaint, it discloses the fact that the death of the deceased Parimala has taken place only because of the ill- treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons for demand of dowry. Even the complaint also discloses that prior to the death of the deceased Parimala, she has called her mother and informed about the demand of an amount of Rs.51,000/- and an additional amount of Rs.50,000/- and she has also informed about the ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons. Even though, during the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice the post mortem report and thereby he contended that there is inconsistencies in the death of the deceased, but that is a fact which 7 has to be adjudicated only at the time of trail and not at this premature stage that too when the bail application has to be considered. When the alleged offences are under the dowry death, then, under such circumstances, the Court must be very strict while dealing with such cases. In that light, if the entire material is perused, it discloses the fact that the death has taken place in the house of the in-laws and admittedly accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that accused No.1 is not entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the petition against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is dismissed. Leave apart this, as could be seen from the charge-sheet, accused No.2 is female and already the charge-sheet has been filed and the case is now ready for the purpose of trial. When the charge-sheet has been filed and the case is ready for trial, then, under such circumstances, I feel that keeping the accused 8 No.2 in jail is not just and proper. In that light, by imposing some stringent conditions if petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is enlarged on bail, it is going to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, petition in respect of petitioner No.2 is allowed.
8. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed in part and petitioner No.2/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;
ii. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;
iii. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer as and when required;9
iv. Petitioner No.2/accused No.2 shall appear before the concerned Court regularly for facing the trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG Ct: MHS