Court: Karnataka High Court
Bench: JUSTICE Budihal R.B.
Manjunath Vs. State Of Karnataka On 3 January 2018
Law Point:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 439 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 304B, 498A, 34 — Bail — Dowry Death — Cruelty — Common intention — Death took place within 7 years of marriage but in the house of complainant and not accused/petitioner No. 1 — Investigation is complete and charge-sheet also filed — Petitioner pleaded that he never ill-treated or insisted deceased to bring dowry amount from parental place — Alleged offence not exclusively punishable for death or life imprisonment — Petitioner released on bail with conditions.
JUDGEMENT
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent-Police Station in Crime No. 62/2017.
2. The mother of the deceased is the complainant in this case, wherein it is stated that her daughter was given in marriage to accused No. 1 about three years prior to the incident. For the period of one year the couple led happy marital life. Thereafter wards they started to ill-treat her and they have also harassed to bring dowry amount from her parental place. The further statement goes to show that even one day earlier to the incident deceased went to her husband place and then came back and she committed suicide in the house of the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered for the said 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 High Court Government Pleader opposes the petition on the ground that death has taken within seven years from the date of the marriage and looking to the complaint averments there are allegations that they insisted to bring the dowry amount. He also submitted that the deceased left the death note, wherein also allegations are made as against all the accused persons that they were giving ill-treatment in connection with the dowry amount. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for bail.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that looking to the complaint averments similar set of allegations are made as against all the accused persons and accused No. 3 approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. This Court by order dated 9.11.2017 allowed the petition in Crl. P. No. 7742/2017. He has produced the copy of the said order also. Hence he made the submission that looking to the observation at para 6 of the said bail order is material for the purpose of the present bail petition also.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.
7. It is no doubt true that the incident has taken place within seven years from the date of marriage but the incident took place in the house of the complainant and not in the house of the petitioner/Accused No. 1. Now the investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed. The petitioner/accused No. 1 has contended in the petition that he is innocent and they never ill-treated the deceased and never insisted her to bring dowry amount from the parental place. The alleged offence is not exclusively punishable for death or imprisonment for life. Therefore by imposing reasonable conditions he can be admitted to regular bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner/accused No. 1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent-Police Station in Crime No. 62/2017 subject to the following conditions:
(i)
Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000 and has to furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii)
Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
(iii)
Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
DISCLAIMER: The above judgement is posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout/ Copy from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contact your advocate.
You may contact me for legal consultation or advice by visiting Contact Us
Leave A Comment