Karnataka High Court
Chandrashekara vs State Of Karnataka By on 24 June, 2022
Author: H.P. Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5416/2022
BETWEEN:
CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O. SIDDAMALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/OF UDIGALA VILLAGE
HARAVE HOBLI
CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK
AND DISTRICT-571313. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PARAMESWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHAMARAJANAGAR RURAL
POLICE STATION,
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.197/2021 OF CHAMARAJANAGAR RURAL P.S.,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 498A,
304B, 306 R/W. 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4, 6 OF D.P ACT.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.197/2021 of Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the victim was solemnized with accused No.1 on 31.03.2021 and thereafter, the husband, this petitioner and also brother-in-law subjected her for both mental and physical harassment. The complainant consoled her and the accused persons were insisting to get the additional dowry amount. He had borrowed Rs.2 lakhs from his brother Madappa 3 and gave the money and inspite of it, they continued the harassment. Two months back, his son-in-law brought her daughter and left her in the house insisting her to bring the additional dowry and the complainant was mobilizing the money and in the meanwhile, on 12.12.2021, the uncle of her husband came along with her husband and requested to send her and make arrangement for money and make the payment. On the very next day, i.e., on 13.12.2021 at around 12.30 p.m., the husband of her daughter called his elder son-in-law and informed that she is serious and when they went, no one were there in the house and found the dead body and saree piece was found on the roof and hence, the complaint is lodged making the allegation against the husband and in-laws that they have committed the murder. The case has been registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was a love marriage and within two months prior to hanging, the brother of the husband of the victim marriage was also 4 solemnized and within a span of eight months, the alleged incident was taken place. The learned counsel submits that after the investigation, the police have invoked the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC and not Section 302 of IPC as alleged in the complaint, since cause of death is due to asphyxia as a result of hanging and she has committed suicide by hanging herself. The petitioner is in custody from the date of his arrest and no specific allegations are made against him, except general omnibus allegations that he demanded additional dowry and no need of custodial trial and allegation of additional dowry has to be probed during the course of investigation.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the marriage has taken place in the month of March 2021 and the victim died in the month of December 2021 within a span of 9 months. The specific allegations are made that her husband and in-laws subjected her for both of mental and physical harassment and they were demanding money and apart from that, the allegation is made against the husband that he left the 5 victim in her parental house and just one day to the alleged incident of hanging, took her to the matrimonial home and on the very next day, the incident has taken place and there is a prima facie material against the petitioner, who is living along with husband and victim.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, the allegation is that the husband as well as in-laws have subjected her for physical and mental harassment and demanded additional dowry and an amount of Rs.2 lakhs was paid by getting the same from the complainant's brother Madappa. It is also an allegation that one day prior to the incident, the victim was taken to the matrimonial home and husband came along with his uncle and took her. Taking note of the general allegations against the petitioner, no doubt, he was also residing along with the victim and the same cannot be a ground to reject the bail petition, since he is in custody. Whether he has joined along with husband in demanding the 6 money or not is a matter of trial and no need of custodial trial and specific allegations are against accused No.1 subjecting her for both mental and physical harassment and hence it is appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail subject to conditions.
7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.197/2021 of Chamarajanagar Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagar, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute their personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.7
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ST