Ashish S/O. Ashok Kadangle vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2014

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ashish S/O. Ashok Kadangle vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2014

Bench: K.N. Phaneendra

                               1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH
        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2014

                         BEFORE

   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.101162/2014

BETWEEN:

ASHISH S/O. ASHOK KADANGLE
AGE: 30 YEARS,
OCC: CLERK KITTUR CHENNAMMA
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., HAVERI
R/O. HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI
                                       ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M H PATIL, ADV.)


AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAVERI TOWN POLICE
R/BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD.
                                      ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. S. PATIL, HCGP)
                              ---
                                2




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
REGULAR BAIL IN HAVERI TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.97/2014
(S.C.NO.33/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE DIST. &
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI) REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498-A, 304-B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 & 4 OF DP ACT, 1961.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the records.

2. The Haveri Town Police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons in Crime No.97/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Later the case has been committed to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Haveri and numbered as S.C.No.33/2014.

3. The undisputed facts placed before the Court are that the petitioner is the husband of one lady by name Suchitra @ Annayana, the daughter of the complainant - Smt. Malan W/o. Ram Mane. It is also not disputed that the marriage of the petitioner and the daughter of the complainant took place about six years prior to the alleged incident at Sindhagimath, Haveri and thereafter, the husband and wife started living together at the house of the petitioner herein at Sivayogeshwar Nagar in Haveri. It is alleged by the complainant that after the marriage, for some time the husband and wife lived happily with each other and thereafter, the petitioner herein and his family members started ill-treating and harassing the daughter of the complainant in demand of dowry as well as some gold and silver articles etc. In this background, it is alleged that about six months prior to the incident, the petitioner and his family members had abused the deceased in the presence of her parents in demand of dowry and gold articles. After lapse of six months on 29.03.2014 in the morning at 11 O'clock, it is 4 alleged that the said Suchitra committed suicide by hanging in the bedroom of her matrimonial home by bolting the door from inside. It is also alleged in the First Information Report that the accused broke open the bedroom door and shifted her to the hospital.

4. During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statements of several witnesses. As could be seen from the statements of the witnesses, almost the same factual aspects as in the First Information Report have been reiterated. The records does not disclose as to what exactly happened on 29.03.2014 in order to draw any inference at this stage that there was any ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. For a period of six months after the alleged demand of dowry, the husband and wife lived together. Therefore, what transpired between them in these six months has to be established by the prosecution during the full dressed trial in order to bring home the guilt of the accused.

5. Under the above said circumstances, as the accused is in judicial custody since the date of his arrest and more than four months have already been elapsed, and investigation has already been completed, I am of the opinion that, when the other accused persons on the same allegations have already been released on bail, this petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. Hence the following:

ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in S.C.No.33/2014 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, subject to the following conditions:-

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of Trial Court or the Committal Court, as the case may be.

ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the hearing dates, unless prevented by any genuine cause.

iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE gab/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court