Karnataka High Court
Ashok S/O Kalakappa Ramapur @ Charaki vs State Of Karantaka on 21 September, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102019 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
ASHOK S/O KALAKAPPA RAMAPUR @ CHARAKI
AGED 28 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE
R/O. MUDHOL, TQ:YELBURGA,
DIST:KOPPAL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
STATE OF KARANTAKA
BY PSI YELBURGA POLICE STATION
REP. BY HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING THAT THE
PETITIONER KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN
CRIME NO. 55 OF 2016 (S.C.NO. 58 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOPPAL) REGISTERED BY
YELBURGA POLICE STATION FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER
SECTION 498A AND 306 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in the respondent Police Station Crime No. 55/2016 and now pending in S.C.No.58/2017 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge at Koppal.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution's case, as per the averments of the complaint, are that, the father of the deceased is the complainant in this case, wherein he has stated that his daughter by name Geetha @ Mudiyawwa was given in marriage to the present petitioner about 3 years back prior to the incident. The deceased was treated properly for a period of 01 year. The further averments goes to show, thereafterwards the petitioner herein and one Manjunath the brother of the present petitioner started giving ill-treatment to the deceased stating she does not know how to prepare the food and even she does not :3: begotten the children. They were telling that they are performing second marriage to the present petitioner stating so they were assaulting her, telling her to die and giving ill-treatment both physical and mental. The deceased when came to the parental place in February 2015, told about the same before the complainant. Then the complainant and the elders of the village went to the house of the petitioner advised them it is not proper for them to give such ill-treatment and accordingly they advised the petitioner and the family members. It is also stated, when the present petitioner came to the house of the complainant at that time also they advised him, even the petitioner and his family members continued their ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased insisting her to go and die. This fact the deceased use to inform the complainant over phone often. On 08.06.2016 in the evening at 06.00 p.m. Manjunath the brother of the present petitioner phone to the complainant inform that the daughter of the complainant consumed poison in the land at about 04.30 p.m. and she becomes unconscious and he also inform that she will be taken to :4: Yelburga Government Hospital. At 06.20 p.m. again the complainant was informed that when the deceased was shifted to the hospital on the way at about 06.10 p.m. she expired and her dead body is in the Yelburga Government Hospital. Then the complainant and the elders of his village and the family members went to the place and they came to Yelburga and after going to the Government Hospital at Yelburga, they have seen the dead body of the daughter of the complainant. Therefore, it is further averred that petitioner and his family members gave ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased and abetted to commit suicide by consuming the poison i.e. pesticides. Therefore, by the said complaint he has requested to take action against all those 4 persons. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered against the petitioner and his family member.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. :5:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission, that looking to the complaint averments, though it was against 4 persons including the petitioner, but on the very next day the complainant gave his further statement, wherein he has stated that because of the death of his daughter and as he was in a perplexed mood. He gave the complaint against 4 persons and he also made it clear that it is only the present petitioner who has given ill-treatment and harassment and the other 3 persons i.e. the parents of the present petitioner and Manjunath the elder brother of the present petitioner. In fact they have not given any such ill-treatment. Learned counsel submitted that if this further statement is looked into this itself clearly goes to show that there is false implication of the petitioner in the case. He also draw the attention of the Court to the statement of the mother of the deceased and made submission that it clearly goes to show that on 18.01.2016 the present petitioner along with the deceased went to the parental place of the deceased to attend the Durgamma fair. Hence, the counsel submitted that this :6: also goes to show the couple were living happily. Hence, the false allegations are made in the compliant. It is also his submission that looking to the complaint averments there are no specific allegations regarding the nature of the ill-treatment and harassment and only bald and vague allegations are made as against the present petitioner. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra the learned HCGP made submission, that looking to the prosecution material the incident took place, within 3 years from the date of the marriage and regarding the ill-treatment and harassment by the petitioner herein, there are allegations in the complaint, as well as in the statement of witnesses the incident has taken place, when the deceased lead her marital life with the present petitioner. Hence, learned HCGP made submission that in view of these material collected by Investigation Officer during investigation it prima facie :7: goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the charge sheet material and the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer during investigation. Looking to the allegations made in the complaint, so also in the statement of the parents and the other witnesses recorded during investigation, there is allegation that the present petitioner was giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased both physical and mental, stating that she does not know how to prepare the food and she did not begotten the children and the petitioner will marry another girl. In the statement of the witnesses and the parents, there is also mention that the petitioner was telling the deceased to go and die. It is stated in the statement of witnesses and the parents of the deceased, the deceased used to tell about all those things over phone and also whenever she use to :8: come to the parental place. So far as the contentions of the learned counsel that firstly the allegations are made against all the family members. Subsequently the further statement was given, wherein other family members were not at all gave such ill-treatment and harassment. Only because of this the case as against the present petitioner and the material collected against the petitioner cannot be disbelieved at this stage. Looking to the materials and as submitted by the learned HCGP, incident took place within 3 years from the date of marriage it is in the house of the petitioner i.e. the farm house and the allegations that she committed suicide by consuming pesticides. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion it is not fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. Hence, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-