Karnataka High Court
Ramesh S/O9 Chandrappa Sutagundi vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100922/2017
BETWEEN:
RAMESH S/O CHANDRAPPA SUTAGUNDI
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ALAGUNDI, B.K. VILLAGE,
TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PAVAN B. DODDATTI, ADVOCATE.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PSI, MUDHOL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY
GRANTING REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER AND THE
PETITIONER KINDLY BE ENLARGED ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.
1540 OF 2016 (CRIME NO.314 OF 2015) REGISTERED BY
:2:
THE PSI, MUDHOL POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MUDHOL FOR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 306,
201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS 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 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.314/2015.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that one Gangappa has lodged the complaint on 25.11.2015 before the Police Sub- Inspector alleging that the father of the complainant has six sons including complainant and four daughters. Out of the four daughters, one Renuka had married petitioner/accused No.1 and in the wedlock they have :3: three children. The deceased was residing with her husband in the matrimonial home. The deceased Renuka was sent back to her parental home one year prior to filing of the complaint asking for dowry by all the petitioner and other family members. Later the elderly persons of both the villages have pacified the dispute and the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, brother of the complainant namely Sangappa in view of Nagapanchami festival had visited his sister's home along with sweets and the accused without accepting the sweets had sent him back without treating him properly.
On 24.11.2015 at about 06.15p.m., the complainant's brother Shivanand had got a call from his sister's husband i.e., petitioner herein, stating that Renuka died of heart attack, hearing the same the complainant and his brother got scared. Then all the family members and the complainant went to the said place and seen the dead body of Renuka, there was a :4: ligature mark on the neck of the deceased. On the basis of the same and on suspicion it is contended by the complainant that the accused persons have caused the death of the deceased as they have insisted her to bring the property from her parental place, which she has not done. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.1 and also the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the contents of the complaint shows that it is only on the basis of suspicion the case has been booked against petitioner and other accused persons. He has also submitted that marriage took place about 17 years ago. Therefore, after long lapse, that too, when couple having three children, the question of giving ill- treatment alleging demand of dowry does not arise at :5: all. He has further submitted that all other accused persons were released on bail and investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition on the ground that when the present petitioner given the information to the complainant, firstly he told that deceased died because of heart-attack, but when the complainant and other family members seen the dead body of the deceased, there was a ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, therefore, this itself shows the involvement of the petitioner along with other accused persons in committing the alleged offence. Hence, he has submitted that petitioner is not entitled for release on bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet :6: material containing the statement of witnesses, PM report and the opinion given by the FSL regarding the cause of death of the deceased. It is no doubt true, the witnesses, in their statements recorded by the I.O., have stated that there used to be ill-treatment to the deceased by the petitioner and other family members. But the petitioner has contended in the petition that he is innocent and not involved in committing the alleged offence. As submitted, the marriage of the deceased with the petitioner took place about 17 years ago.
7. Looking to the averments in the complaint, the complainant raised suspicion that the petitioner along with other accused persons might have caused the death of the deceased Renuka. The offence alleged under Section 306 of IPC is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On the similar set of allegations, other accused persons have already been released on bail. Now the investigation is completed :7: and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to regular bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.314/2015 registered by the respondent Police for the above said offences, subject to following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR