Karnataka High Court
Sri Bhargava V vs State Of Karnataka By on 28 July, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6301 OF 2022
BETWEEN
SRI BHARGAVA V
S/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEAWRS
R/AT 3/555, SIVASAKTHINAGAR
PERANDAPPALLI POST
HOSUR
KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
TAMILNADU - 635 001 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR B M, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HALASUR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP
SMT. SOFIYA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.115/2022 OF HALASUR
P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 306 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X A.C.M.M, COURT, MAYO HALL
AT KOLAR.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting anticipatory bail in Crime No.115/2022 of Halasur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant one Shreehari who is the father of the deceased filed a complaint to the Police on 22.06.2022 alleging that his daughter Chandrika was given in marriage with this petitioner. The marriage was held on 07.11.2019 at Attibele. Thereafter, his daughter residing with the petitioner at Hosur, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner is said to be working at private company. After the marriage, the 3 accused Nos.1 and 2 said to be harassing his daughter physically and mentally. Subsequently, on 06.09.2020, this petitioner brought his daughter back and left stating that she is unwell and after that he did not return back. Thereafter, his daughter was trying to convince the petitioner to take her back, but he has not taken her back. Therefore, she has filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act on 06.09.2020. It is further alleged that the accused-petitioner later came and told her to withdraw the petition and gave assurance to live together. Believing his words, she withdrawn the petition on 10.03.2021. Subsequently, the petitioner also said to be filed a divorce petition making various allegation against her for granting divorce. But on 17.06.2022, his daughter went to the Hosur Court for attending the divorce case, came back from the Court and later she committed suicide in the house. A UDR also registered by the Police on the said date and subsequently, this complaint came to be registered. After registering the case, the Police making hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner. Hence, he is before 4 this Court for granting anticipatory bail as his bail petition is rejected by the Sessions Judge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated. There is no complaint or allegation made by the complainant on 17.06.2022 when the deceased committed suicide. A UDR was registered by the Police in UDR No.24/2022 and after five days, this complaint came to be registered. Learned counsel also submits that they are making false allegations on the petitioner. He is ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He also contended that accused No.2 is already granted bail by the Sessions Judge. Hence, prayed for granting bail.
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the bail petition and contended that the deceased went to the Hosur Court to attend the divorce petition. There was something happened together. Thereafter, the deceased came back from the Court and 5 has committed suicide. Therefore, the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. The learned High Court Government Pleader also submits that by getting instructions from the defacto-complainant, the advocate who assisted by name Smt. Sophia and contended that in the petition filed by her in the D.V. Act, she has narrated that the accused always suspected her character by verifying and checking her mobile phone and in the divorce petition also he has mentioned that she has contact with one Santhosh. That made to the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the daughter of the complainant i.e., the wife of this petitioner has committed suicide in the house of the complainant on 17.06.2022. A UDR was also registered by the Police but no complaint lodged on that date. But subsequently, on 22.06.2022, the father of the deceased lodged the detailed complaint where it is stated 6 that the accused said to have dropped her back to the matrimonial home within one year of their marriage and thereafter, not taken her back. A case under D.V. Act also filed where she has mentioned so many allegation against the petitioner and his mother. It is an admitted fact that the said D.V.Act case came to be withdrawn by the daughter of the complainant i.e., deceased on 10.03.2022. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has already filed a divorce petition before the Family Court, Hosur in HMOP No.18/2021 and as per the submission of learned counsel and the averments of the complaint, the deceased went to the Court and attended the hearing and as per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre where the matter was not settled. Hence, the case was referred to the Court and posted for filing objection of the deceased. On the said day, she came back from the Court and committed suicide. Admittedly, the divorce petition averments go to show that he was suspecting the character of the deceased by connecting with one 7 Santhosh in the petition. The petitioner not produced any document to show that he has requested the deceased to come and join with him by issuing any legal notice or filing the restitution of conjugal rights and he has directly filed the divorce petition making various allegation including adultery. Definitely it will be a cause or reason to abet the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner required for custodial interrogation in order to know as to what has happened on the date of hearing when she went to the Hosur Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
7. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB