Karnataka High Court
Sudhakar Reddy vs State By Rajgopal on 5 February, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8182/2013
BETWEEN:
Sudhakar Reddy,
S/o. Govinda Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.47, 2nd Cross,
Sanjeevini Nagar,
Hegganahalli,
Bangalore-560 091. .. PETITIONER
(By Sri. Subramanya.H.V, Adv.)
AND:
State by
Rajagopal Nagar P.S.,
Bangalore-560 010. .. 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 Cr.
No.212/2013 of Rajagopal Nagar P.S., Bangalore, for the
offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 498A of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following :
2
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 offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.212/2013.
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 the father of the deceased is the complainant in this case and he has filed a complaint at the first instance. There are no allegations that the petitioner was demanding dowry amount from the deceased or he was ill treating her, both mentally and physically, in connection with demand of dowry amount. It is mentioned in the complaint that as the deceased consumed tablet, she became weak and both the complainant as well as the petitioner shifted the deceased to 3 the hospital for treatment. After examination, the Doctor advised them to take the deceased to other hospital for further treatment as she was having low blood pressure. The learned Counsel submitted that on the basis of the complaint, initially, UDR was registered. Subsequently, the Tahsildar conducted inquest mahazar proceedings. The Tahsildar intimated the police in this regard and in view of the statement of the mother raising suspicions in the death of her daughter, he requested the police to register the case. The learned Counsel submitted that absolutely, there is no material to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Therefore, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that though in the complaint lodged by father of the deceased, there may not be details, but looking to the statement of mother of the deceased, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was ill treating the deceased, both mentally and physically. He was insisting the deceased to bring further dowry amount of 4 Rs.2.00 lakh from her parental house. The learned HCGP further submitted that even the statement of the brother of deceased Sri. Varaprasad recorded by the investigating officer during investigation clearly goes to show that the petitioner though received dowry amount at the time of marriage, he further demanded Rs.2.00 lakh as an additional dowry amount for the purpose of starting his business. Hence, he submitted that there is material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. He has also submitted that investigation of the case is still in progress and hence, sought for rejection of the bail petition.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, inquest mahazar and also the statement of the mother and brother of the deceased.
6. At this stage, looking to the statement of the mother and brother of the deceased, prima facie, there is an allegation that at the time of marriage of the deceased with the petitioner, they had paid dowry amount and the petitioner was giving ill treatment the deceased, both 5 mentally and physically. The petitioner was insisting the deceased to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs for the purpose of starting new business. The death has taken placed within three months from the date of marriage of the deceased with the petitioner and said incident has taken place in the house of the petitioner. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and as the investigation of the case is still in progress, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
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/-