Karnataka High Court
Sunil Kumar vs State By Police Sub-Inspector on 20 February, 2018
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.962/2018
BETWEEN:
SUNIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE LAXMANAMURTHY
I CROSS, I MAIN,
CHIKKAMMANNI LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577 601.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VINAYA KEERTHY M, ADV.)
AND:
STATE BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
HARIHARA TOWN POLICE STATION
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
BENGALOORU-560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.179/2017 OF HARIHARA TOWN POLICE
STATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES
2
P/U/Ss 498A,307,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3
AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
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 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, registered in respondent
- police station Crime No.179/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that wife of the petitioner lodged the complaint in this case, wherein it is stated that her marriage with petitioner/accused No.1 was performed in the year 2016, after the marriage, she had been to the house of the petitioner to lead her marital life. The petitioner along with other family members were giving 3 ill-treatment insisting her to bring dowry amount from her parental place. Further averments show that petitioner also picked up quarrel with her, assaulted her and because of that reason when she was carrying pregnancy, consulted the Doctor, who after examining the complainant, informed her that fetus is already dead. Therefore, it is alleged that because of the assault made by her husband such a consequence has followed, hence, complaint is filed against the petitioner and his family members. On the basis of which, case came to be registered for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that false 4 allegations are made against the petitioner even though he has not committed the alleged offence and not given any physical or mental ill-treatment to the complainant. He also submitted that petitioner herein has filed the petition seeking divorce regarding dissolution of marriage in between the petitioner and the complainant on 03.10.2017 and subsequently, the wife filed the false complaint as a counterblast to the said petition filed by the husband. He submitted that from the date of arrest, petitioner is in custody and is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. He also submitted that investigation is almost at the final stage, hence, submitted to allow the petition and release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that the records on the side of prosecution 5 supports the contention of the complainant, the medical record shows that her brain condition is also affected because of the assault. He submitted that the matter is still under investigation, hence, at this stage petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. Looking into the materials, there are allegations in the complaint by the complainant that the petitioner along with his family members used to give ill-treatment to the complainant both mentally and physically, insisting her to bring more dowry amount from her parental place. There is also an allegation that when she was carrying pregnancy at that time also the petitioner twisted her hand and he also fisted on the stomach forcefully, as she was not able to tolerate the 6 pain, she went to the hospital and she was admitted to SSIMS Hospital. The Hospital authorities after examining the complainant given the opinion that because of the force to the stomach, the child in the womb was dead and it has to be taken out by conducting surgery.
Regarding this allegation made in the complaint there is also medical record issued from the Hospital, wherein it is stated that the mental condition of the complainant is also affected by looking into the CT Brain report that was taken at the time of giving treatment, the Doctor also mentioned in the medical record that patient needed long term mechanical ventilation. It is also mentioned that there was hardly any improvement in the patient's condition due to brain stem hemorrhage and acute renal injury. 7
8. Looking into the said certificate issued by the hospital authorities dated 28.03.2017 it cannot be said that false allegations are made against the petitioner as contended in the bail petition, because the averments made in the complaint are supported by the medical records, even it is the opinion of the Medical Officer that the condition of the complainant was not improved. When such being the case and it was also opined that because of the forceful hit on the stomach, the child died in the womb, it has to be taken out after conducting surgery and as the investigation is still going on, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR