Karnataka High Court
Raju @ Devappa @ Devendrappa S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 September, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10 t h DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAWAD RAHIM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10942/2012
BETWEEN:
RAJU @ DEVAPPA @ DEVENDRAPPA
S/O. MADAKAPPA GUDAGUNTI
AGE : 28 YEARS,
OCC : BUSINESS,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.19, NEXT TO DARGA
VALVEKAR PLOT, KESHAVAPUR,
TQ : HUBLI,
DIST : DHARWAD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. MASALI, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
HUBLI
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.M. BANAKAR ASPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILE DU/S. 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL,
WHO HAS BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND
ARRESTED IN CRIME NO.22/2011 ON THE FILE OF WOMEN
:2:
POLICE STATION, HUBLI AND CHARGE-SHEETED FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S. 498-A, 304-B, R/W. 149 OF IPC AND
SEC. 3 & 4 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioner/husband seeks bail while in judicial custody facing charge for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 304-B read with Section 149 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act along with eight others in the matter relating to death of Deepa.
2. The prosecution's case is, the petitioner/Raju @ Devappa married Deepa on 09.12.2010 and the couple lived together in a house occupied by accused Nos.2 to 9. It is alleged, the parents of the girl satisfied the demands of the petitioner and his family members by giving five soverign of gold, one lakh rupees and several house-hold articles worth fifty thousand rupees. Despite such gesture on their :3: part, the petitioner and family members are alleged to have renewed the demand of dowry which included demand to give two-wheeler to the petitioner. Since, the parents of the girl Deepa could not meet his demands, they indulged in physical cruelty which aggravated day by day resulting in her suicide on the intervening night of 06.07.2011. Initially, the report was that she was tortured to death, an offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. However, during investigation in Crime No.22/2011, the investigating officer looking at the allegation that dowry demand was there and the findings of the medical evidence in autopsy that she died due to asphyxia consequent to hanging, he has dropped Section 302 of the I.P.C. and revised under Section 304-B of the I.P.C.
3. The petitioner's counsel would contend that petitioner is innocent. He indulged in no act :4: attributed to him. The complainant has implicated not only him, but eight of his family members to harass the petitioner's family. He would submit that the allegations in the report are vague and do not refer to any particular incident or particular overt act of any one. The second ground is that in the same family, another girl is married to Accused No.3 from whose family there is no allegation. On this basis, he would submit that the allegations in the complaint are false. The last ground is because of the incompatibility of temperaments, the woman committed suicide.
4. Learned Addl.SPP, Sri.V.M.Banakar has opposed the grant of bail pointing out that within 6½ months of her marriage, Deepa found dead at a time when she was few months pregnant. Therefore, cause of her death itself is in doubt. He would submit that but for the conduct of the accused, she would have been alive. :5:
5. What surfaces from the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for the respondent, as referred to by me in the para supra, makes a very disturbing reading that the life of a young girl who might have entered the matrimony hoping to have rightful bliss, but met a tragic end. Whether, it is a murder or it is a suicide would not change the fact situation. Unless there were compelling circumstances making it impossible for her to live, such an extreme step would not have been taken by her. Someone has to answer for it and in this case, the petitioner. Instead of being a protector, petitioner appears to have become predator. Taking into consideration the allegation in its totality, liberality in consideration is not justified. Hence, at the present, I do not find the petitioner could be trusted with the liberal order of bail. Hence, the petition is rejected.
:6:
However, after the committal proceedings, the trial does not commence within a period of one year, he may renew petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ct: sma/-
Rkk/-