Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 227 (KAR)

Vinayak v. State of Karnataka

2016-03-02

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2016
ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. Gandhi Chowk Police, Vijayapur, have laid a charge sheet against petitioner and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. Sri. Tukarama Ramachandra Sugathebar-father of deceased-Vidhyashree, Devarahi-pparagi village, Sindagi Taluk has lodged a complaint. It is alleged that, his third daughter Vidhyashree was given in marriage to petitioner about four years prior to the lodgment of the complaint. Petitioner and said Vidhyashree lead married life and they were blessed with two children. It is alleged that petitioner and other family members of the petitioner started demanding for more money and gold articles in consideration of the marriage. In fact, about a year prior to the lodgment of the complaint, complainant has given a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in spite of that, they were not satisfied and ill-treatment continued. It is stated that about a month prior to the lodgment of the complaint, the deceased-Vidhyashree has complained that her husband and other family members were ill-treating and harassing her. It is also alleged in the complaint that on 13.08.2015 complainant demanded the petitioners to send Vidhyashree to his village in connection with a festival. As Vidhyashree was not well, the accused denied for the same and told the complainant that after the festival he can take her. 3. In this background, on 15.08.2015, complainant received a message that Vidhyashree committed suicide in the house of the accused/petitioner. It is alleged that due to the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her by the accused persons, said lady committed suicide. On these allegations, the police have thoroughly investigated the case and filed charge-sheet. During the course of investigation and after the charge-sheet being filed, it appears, other accused persons have filed bail petitions and all other accused persons have been released on bail except the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that in Criminal Petition No. 201207/2015 vide order dated 14.12.2015, this Court has categorically observed that fact of demand for dowry or harassment needs to be established during the course of trial and the same is likely to take quite some time to be completed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice that in Criminal Petition No. 201207/2015 vide order dated 14.12.2015, this Court has categorically observed that fact of demand for dowry or harassment needs to be established during the course of trial and the same is likely to take quite some time to be completed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has observed that the allegations made against the accused/petitioners therein are common against all. Therefore, learned counsel contends that petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on the ground of parity. Though some more responsibility is cast upon the husband to take care of his wife compared to other members of the family. But looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, at this stage, there is no material to show that there was any ill-treatment or harassment soon before the death of deceased in demand of dowry in order to raise an initial presumption against the accused/petitioner. Therefore, that factum has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt during the course of full-fledged trial. Though in the complaint it is stated that petitioners and others were ill-treating and harassing the deceased, but how the husband and wife were living together is not forthcoming in order to establish as to whether petitioner was taking care of his wife or not. 5. Under the above circumstances, as the petitioner was already arrested on 16.08.2015 and he is doing small petty business and he has to maintain his two children, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case where the petitioner can be enlarged on bail on certain conditions. 6. Hence, I pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with S.C. No. 130/2015 pending on the file of Ill-Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, for the alleged offences, subject to following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all future dates of hearing unless exempted by the Court for any valid reasons. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all future dates of hearing unless exempted by the Court for any valid reasons. (iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without its prior per mission, till the disposal of the case on merits. Order accordingly.