Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 May, 2010
Author: H.S.Kempanna
Bench: H.S.Kempanna
- g -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
1:>A'1*Ep Tms THE 13%! DAY OF MAY 20 :0 q I
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE H,%s.;<EM§i;m:§'A"'«V§i _ ,1 u
CRIMINAL PE'I'I':':0N
B EN:
SI'i.MaI1j1matha {Am 1),
3/0 Iéiuniyappa,
Aged about 25 Years, _ .
R] at Chermapura Viiiage,
Avani Hobfi, . _
Mu1bagai'I'a1uk;-- .jf-__..,fPETIT§ONER
(By M] ?§{A3sts.)
ANI):
_ The Stgifté of
1v§u1baga1i,.Po1i;t:. **** RESPONDENT
(By"Si3§.'S§ti§2;§'R;Gifiji, HOG?)
filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C
" 'pfafiflg "£0 enlarge the petitioner on bail in
_ % ' $;'C;N9:I.-'I5/2010 on the file of the E Addl. msmct and
" at Kolar which is read" for the ofience
""f?]U/S/498(A), 302, 304(8), R/W Sec.34~ of IPC and 3
n "and 4 of:D.P.Act.
p\Q/
-2-
This Cr}.P. coming on for erciers this day, the
Court made the following: it
O R D E R
The petitioner who is aecusfidi ., S.C.No.15/10 en the file of Iit'1%.d'di.Distfiet¥_:etrgdi' Sessions Judge, Koiar, reg_istei*'ed"" fer , punishable under Smtions iai1d'i;306 2*/w 34 of 1.9.9,. and undc:f_"eec1{io1;$'3i.._a:1e.4 of the D.P.Act, 1961, has f'11€Cl,{1h€ iI}St.~'rtt_"1t. for grant of it is the presecution that the deeeasediiiiflezigeia is tiie wife of this petitioner. Her had it bee..t1.«'performed with the petitioner on I lilii'. Kofifingeshwaxa Temple, Kammasandra in Bangarpet taluk. At the time of mamiage, the present petitioner and his mother and A "it had been paid a dowry of Rs.50,C}OO/-- apart from h gold jewelry. After the marriage, it is aileged that the petitioner along with his mother and sister started to subject the deceased to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand of additional dowry and in this connection, they were subjecting her to cruelty and harassment both physicaily and mentally. The deceased ultimately being unbearable of the se.n:r'e;~.Ton 31.08.09 at about 8 a.m., while she was .. (5.91-nané.LL"é'z:§ itum-de. "-"°(}"i«._«.'.;;< matrimonial homegset tire to herself after i ma' . I kerosene.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitiener "
having regard to the facts axreitahie on'-reeordgtthere is no material to sheez._"':%tha't §:he'«._V_gieeeased it had been subjected to cruelty 'either mentally or physie§;ily,«soo?n death, in order to attract the provisionsof V of the 1.P.C. Further in respeet of t11e"'a1_V1eged demand of dowry and harassment, the allegations in the complaint reveal and his family are labourers by
-V protessionend taking the same into consideration, it is it V' V' too--rnneh to expect the demand that has been made by tithe it petitioner, his mother ant} sister from the it hivieomplainant. He further submits that this Court has aiready granted bail to the mother and sister am} the petitioner is in custody since 31.08.09. As the fiy investigation is completed and as the case is pending triai before the Court: of Sessions, in the circumstances, he be gamed bail.
4. On the other hand, learned the State drawing my atte_mior1..Ate._ the "
submits that the eiaterrials oft» that this petitioner along sister had subjected the ggrassment and that is bome dated 16.11.09 recorded investigation Qf the cese._'i _a._'Heiima facie material, the who is responsibie for the deem" ,of it the" detreesed, under the facts and is not entitled to be released on bail. undisputed that the marriage of the deceased has taken place with this petitioner on at Kotifingeshwala temple in Kammasaridra " jemage of Bangarpet taiuk. Though the allegations reveal that at the time of marriage, the petitioner and his mother and sister have demanded a sum of <6'@/ Rs.5(},OO{)/- as dowry and gold jewelry pursuant to which, an amount ef Rs.30,000/- had been paid date of the marriage apart from gold . nothing at thie stage indicating...,.to sttow --- the " " 'V cieeeased had been subjeetedV7.«to;'_"an}?»._eIt£ieit§;:\,e,\ei»:oJ hatassment either menta}ly" physically befere her death. The aE1ege_c1'statemVent'ef' tee "i;aitt:erf§ of the deceased recorded on show that, it must have cotneg te has flown under the expressing any View en' anti taking into consideiafien' and sister have been granted .,enz:1 of the petitioner has already «..13ee;f;§""eon:tn::.itted Vttov--tee Court of Sessions and as he has since 31.08.09, in the facts and of the ease, I do not find any jusfification *-to decline the request of the petitioner. V' In the resuit, for the foregoing reasons, I " '"pt'o<:eed to pass the following order:--
W Petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bomjii sum of Rs.50,000/-- with two sureties for _ the satisfaction of the i Add1.Sess:iQns "
subject to the follewing eondi.tion;£.:é- A (1) Petitioner shall befegfe on all dates of hearjfig, V'
(ii) He shail '1?._{)t" with the proseegfior1"Wit13eSee's_.
Sr}. V _ _