Karnataka High Court
Nagraj S/O Madayya Swamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200459/2019
BETWEEN:
NAGRAJ S/O MADAYYA SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC
R/O VILLAGE TORANA, TQ. AURAD-B
DIST. BIDAR - 585 401
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
KAMALNAGAR POLICE STATION
TQ. AURAD-B, DIST. BIDAR
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 103
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P.S. PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.197/2018 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.127/2018 REGISTERED BY THE KAMALNAGAR POLICE
STATION, DIST. BIDAR), FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B, R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC
AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AS
2
PER THE CHARGE SHEET, PENDING BEFORE THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This bail petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to grant regular bail in Crime No.127/2018 of Kamalnagar Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 R/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Factual matrix of the petition are as under:-
It is transpired in the complaint that, the marriage of the deceased-Bhagyashree was performed with accused No.1-Nagraj on 04.05.2018 as per the customs prevailed in their society. During her marriage, her parents had given dowry in terms of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 grmas of gold and also household articles. The accused-Nagaraj by avocation is a Mechanic and he intended to establish a mechanic 3 shop. Therefore, he demanded the deceased to bring additional dowry in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents house. The accused had given physical as well as mental harassment to her. Because of the harassment meted out to her, she committed suicide by hanging herself with means of saree in her husband's house within a period of three months from the date of her marriage. Subsequent to registration of the crime, a case in Crime No.127/2018 came to be registered against four accused for the aforesaid offences. But, the charge sheet has been laid by the Investigating Officer only against the petitioner/accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B R/w Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P. Act'). The Investigating Officer has not laid the charge sheet against accused Nos.3 and 4 and they have not been sent up for trial, as no charge sheet has been laid against them in view of the statement given by the 4 parents of the deceased that their daughter has committed suicide by hanging.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has contended that the petitioner is none other than the husband of the deceased-Bhagyashree and their marriage was performed on 04.05.2018 as per the customs prevailed in their society. The allegation made in the complaint is that, the husband of the deceased has given physical as well as mental harassment to her to bring additional dowry in terms of cash of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents house. Because of that demand made by him, she has committed suicide by hanging. Based upon the complaint filed by the complainant, initially, a case in Crime No.127/2010 came to be registered against four 5 accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, R/w Section 34 of IPC, but the charge sheet has been laid by the Investigating Officer only against this petitioner as well as accused No.2 namely, Sangeeta being the mother-in-law of the deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B R/w Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act. But, the other two accused have been left out in the charge sheet and they did not sent up for trial. Moreover, the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, which has been lugged in the FIR has been dropped in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused. The petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. Moreover, the petitioner by avocation is a Mechanic and if he is kept behind the bar for a longer period, his carrier would be ruined in the society. The entire material secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation does not disclose anything relating to the 6 specific overt-act attributed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304B of IPC. Even there is no specific allegation made against the petitioner for demanding additional dowry in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the deceased to bring the same from her parents house. But, the said theory has been set up in a complaint filed by the complainant and also in further statement given before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. But, the major offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC has been dropped in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer. The complainant has filed a complaint with an ulterior motive just to rope the petitioner in the alleged crime along with his mother Sangeeta, being the mother-in-law of the deceased. Whereas, accused No.2- Sangeeta has already been released on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.201472/2018 by order dated 20.12.2018 by imposing certain suitable conditions stipulated therein. Accused No.2 and the 7 petitioner are standing on the similar footing for the allegation that they were insisting the deceased to bring the additional dowry from her parents house for the purpose to establish the mechanic shop. Therefore, the principle of parity be extended to this petitioner to consider his bail petition. Further, it is contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this court while granting bail to him. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for enlarging the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has contended that the petitioner-Nagraj is none other than the husband of deceased-Bhagyashree and their marriage was performed on 04.05.2018 and during her marriage, her parents had given considerable dowry in term of cash as well as 10 grams of gold and also the household articles. The deceased-Bhagyashree had 8 committed suicide by hanging in the house of her husband within a span of three months from the date of her marriage. The same has been revealed in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused. The petitioner was insisting the deceased to bring additional dowry in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents house for the purpose to establish the mechanic shop. It is further contended that the petitioner is the main cause for the death of the deceased, who committed suicide by hanging with means of saree in the house of her husband. Hence, he is not deserving for bail. On these ground, the learned High Court Government Pleader is seeking for dismissal of the bail petition filed by the petitioner.
6. Having regard to the strenuous contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State are concerned, it is relevant to state 9 that based upon the complaint filed by the complainant, initially, the crime came to be registered against four accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 R/w Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has taken up the investigation of the case and during the investigation, he has recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased and based upon the same, the charge sheet has been laid only against accused No.1-Nagraj, being the husband of the deceased and also accused No.2- Sangeeta, being the mother-in-law of the deceased for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B R/w Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, by dropping Section 302 of IPC. It is also relevant to state that the petitioner is said to be the husband of the deceased and by avocation he is a Mechanic. The allegation made in the complaint as well as in the materials secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation reveals that, the 10 petitioner was insisting the deceased to bring additional dowry in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents house for the purpose to establish a mechanic shop. There is no dispute with regard to committing of suicide by the deceased-Bhagyashree in the house of her husband with means of saree within a span of three months from the date of her marriage. The Investigating Officer has already laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B R/w Section 34 of IPC, besides Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, by dropping Section 302 of IPC, which has been lugged against the accused earlier in the FIR said to be recorded by the police based upon the complaint filed by the complainant. The charge sheet is consisting the statement of witnesses, spot mahazar conducted by the Investigating Officer in the presence of panch witnesses and also the inquest proceedings held over the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, it is said that the materials collected by the Investigating Officer 11 during the course of investigation are the enough materials to lay the charge sheet against the accused, but similarly, it is said that the said materials are not enough materials to decline the relief of bail as sought for by the petitioner. Moreover, the co-accused No.2- Sangeeta being the mother-in-law of the deceased- Bhagyashree has already been released on bail by this Court by imposing certain conditions as stipulated therein. Therefore, it is said that there are substances in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeking for relief of bail. However, the learned High Court Government Pleader has submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail, certainly, he would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence. This apprehension could be curtailed by imposing some suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.
12
7. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as well as under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is deserving for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions:
1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court where the case in S.C.No.197/2018 arising out of Crime No.127/2018 of Kamalnagar Police Station is pending;
2. The petitioner shall not hamper the investigation or tamper the prosecution witnesses;
3. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month in the first week on 13 Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the concerned S.H.O., pending disposal of the entire case;
4. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bidar District without prior permission of the competent Court of law;
5. The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE LG