Karnataka High Court
Ravichander S/O. Mallikarjunappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 December, 2017
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
Crl.P.No.102504/2017
BETWEEN
RAVICHANDER
S/O. MALLIKARJUNAPPA KALAPPANAVAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. TANDUR, TQ: SAVANUR,
DIST: HAVERI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SAVANUR POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE
PETITIONER IN SAVANUR POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 18 OF
2017 WHICH IS NUMBERED AS S.C.NO. 51 OF 2017 ON THE
FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI,
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 489-A, 304-B, 306 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner in connection with Savanoor P.S. Crime No.18/2017 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, besides Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act initially. Subsequent to Investigation by the Investigating Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A, 304B and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, besides Section 3 and 4 of D.P. Act in S.C.No.51/2017 pending on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. Since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner on regular bail.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the elder daughter of the complainant by name Mamata was given in marriage with one Ravichandra, being arrayed as accused No.1 and their marriage was performed about 1 year 8 months back. During her marriage, her parents had 3 provided dowry in terms of cash of Rs.60,000/- and 5 tolas of gold along with household articles and so also performed her marriage. It is alleged in the complaint that after the marriage, the accused were started to give physical and mental harassment to her and also insisted her to bring additional dowry in term of gold from her parents house. Due to the harassment meted out by the deceased being the daughter of the complainant committed suicide by hanging in the house of her husband. On filing of the complaint before the respondent-Police crime came to be registered and thereafter to proceed with the case for investigation by the Investigating Officer for the alleged offences and laid the charge sheet in S.C.No.51/2017 pending on the file of 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, where the accused is facing up of trial.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has taken through the complaint filed by the complainant, the FIR recorded by 4 the Police in Crime No.18/2017, wherein the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and conducted the mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. On 04.02.2017 at about 5:30 p.m. the deceased forwarded the message to the complainant being the father of the victim to take her back with him. But at about 7:00 a.m. on 05.02.2017 there was a call came to the brother of the complainant informing that the daughter of the complainant expired on account low B.P. subsequent to receipt of information about the death of her daughter, the complainant along with his family members and villagers went and saw the dead body of his daughter at the scene of crime i.e., the house of the Ravichandra and noticed the traces of pressing the neck and stated that his daughter's husband, in-laws together alleged to have taken away the life of the deceased on account of not brining the additional dowry in terms of gold articles from her parental house. Based upon the complaint filed by the complainant crime came to be registered and thereafter the case has been taken up for investigation by the Investigating Officer and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the 5 alleged offences. Moreover the petitioner herein being the husband of the victim and there is no specific overt act attributed against this accused for having given the physical and mental harassment to the deceased, who committed the suicide by hanging in the scene of crime i.e., the house of the accused. The materials which were collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation by recording the statement of witnesses and so also conducted the spot panchanama and also held inquest over the dead body of Mamata in the presence of panchs are concerned it is alleged that due to the harassment meted out by the deceased in the house of the accused the victim i.e., the daughter of the complainant committed suicide by hanging in the house of her husband, as this contention which has taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners apart from the other grounds urged in the bail petition. The entire charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer does not disclose any ingredients for the alleged offences that too be the heinous offence under Section 302 of IPC. Initially the crime came to be registered for the alleged offences and thereafter 6 Investigating Officer investigated the case and laid the charge sheet against the accused in S.C.No.51/2017 for the alleged offecnes, wherein the accused is required to be facing up of trial, but this accused is in judicial custody since from the date of arrest, as the accused does not require to the Investigating Agency in any further and moreover the accused is required to be looked after the affairs of his family and he is the only source in the family to eke out the life of the dependents. Therefore, if the accused is supposed to be kept behind the bar for a longer period, his family members would loose the bread winner and also be ruined in the Society. It is further contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court, while granting bail to him. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP for the respondent - State vehemently contended that on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant, a case came to be registered in Crime No.18/2017 for the aforesaid alleged offences, wherein the accused had given physical and 7 mental harassment, despite of receipt of considerable dowry in terms of cash and gold along with household articles to her in marriage and the same has been reflected in the FIR as well as the averments made in the complaint, but for the harassment given by the accused being the husband of the deceased she committed the suicide by hanging at the scene of crime i.e., the house of the accused and the same has been seen the materials, which were collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation and also filed charge sheet against the accused in S.C.No.51/2017 pending on the file of 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, as where the accused is required to be facing up of trial for the alleged offences. Therefore, it appears that there are prima facie materials against the accused and accordingly, the learned HCGP prayed to reject the bail petition, as the petitioner does not deserve for the bail as sought for and if the accused is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution case and destroy the evidence. .
6. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned 8 HCGP for the respondent - State and having gone through the materials that is the complaint as well as the materials reflected in the FIR and also the materials collected by the Investigating Officer, it reveals that the daughter of the complainant was given in marriage with the accused- Ravichandra, being the husband of the victim and their marriage was performed about 1 year 8 months back. During her marriage, her parents had given dowry in terms of cash of Rs.60,000/- and 5 tolas of gold along with household articles and so also performed the marriage. Subsequent to marriage she had been to her husband's house to lead the happy marital life and after the marriage, the accused were started to give physical and mental harassment to her to bring additional dowry in term of gold from her parents house. Due to the harassment meted out by the accused, the daughter of the complainant committed suicide by hanging in the house of her husband. On the cursory glance of the entire charge sheet, which is laid by the Investigating Officer by recording the statement of witnesses so also conducted the mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses such as spot mahazar 9 and seizer mahazar and so also inquest held over the dead body of Mamata in the presence of the panchas and so also as where the accused is yet to be facing up of trial in S.C.No.51/2017 for the alleged offences pending on the file of the 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. However, it is necessary at this stage that though enough materials have been collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of Investigation for the alleged offences against the petitioner and the same is enough for proceeding with the case for framing of charge against the accused. But it cannot be said that there are enough materials to decline the relief of bail, merely because for allegation made against the petitioner. Therefore, keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, it is said that it does not require for any detail discussion, while considering the bail petition filed by the petitioner, as there are substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned HCGP submits that if the petitioner is supposed to be released on bail, certainly he would come in the way of prosecution 10 case and would destroy the evidence. As this apprehension expressed by the learned HCGP could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby allowed.
The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.18/2017 of Savanoor P.S., subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with like sum surety to the satisfaction of the 1st Addl.
District and Sessions Judge, Haveri in S.C.No.51/2017 which is pending relating to Crime No.18/2017 of Savanoor P.S. (2) The petitioner shall not tamper or hamper the case of prosecution witnesses.
11(3) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail.
(4) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on first week of Sunday, as per the English monthly calendar in between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. till the conclusion of the trial before the concerned SHO.
(5) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Haveri District without prior permission from the concerned Court of law.
(6) The petitioner shall not indulge with any other criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE Vnp*