Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 678 (KAR)

Vishakantachari v. State of Karnataka

2014-07-22

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2014
JUDGMENT R.B. BUDIHAL, J. 1. This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 300 of 2013. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 4. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B r/w section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 5. As per the complaint averments, one Murthachar, the father of the deceased lodged the complaint stating that at the time of marriage of their daughter they gave 70 grams of gold and by spending Rs. 2,50,000/- they performed her marriage with accused No. 1. After the marriage, accused Nos. 1 to 3 and also other two accused persons, the sister-in-law of the deceased and her husband were giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring more dowiy amount from her parental place. The complaint averments shows that the daughter of the complainant used to tell about the harassment and ill-treatment to the complainant and there was also a panchayath held in this regard wherein the panchayathdars advised the accused persons to treat the deceased properly and not to ill-treat her. The accused persons had agreed before panchayathdars that henceforth they will not ill-treat or harass the deceased. The statement of the witnesses who are neighbours and also other relatives, recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, also shows about the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused persons to the deceased. The death has taken place within seven years from the date of marriage and in the house of the accused. The materials, statement of witnesses and also the parents shows that immediately prior to the incident, the deceased was subjected to Cruel treatment. 6. The materials on record shows that the prosecution has placed prima facie material to show that petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased. The materials, statement of witnesses and also the parents shows that immediately prior to the incident, the deceased was subjected to Cruel treatment. 6. The materials on record shows that the prosecution has placed prima facie material to show that petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, petition is rejected.