Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 915 (KAR)

Rajappa @ Rajkumar v. State of Karnataka

2016-12-01

B.A.PATIL

body2016
ORDER : B.A. Patil, J. The present petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 3 for grant of bail in Crime No. 63/1998 of Kushnoor Police Station, Bidar, which is now transferred to Santhpur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 304 (B) read with Section 34 of IPC, and also for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and the Sessions number has been given in S.C. No. 37/1999 and therein the accused No. 3 has been shown as a split up accused for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 304 (B) read with Section 34 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. Brief facts of the-case are that, the deceased Pushpa, the wife of the present petitioner got married the petitioner. After the marriage, along with other accused persons, the petitioner/accused subjected the deceased to physical and mental torture for demanding the additional dowry. When she was residing in the house of the accused at Ladha village, all the accused persons were torturing her to bring the dowry. In furtherance of their common intention, on 5.10.1998 at about 2.00 p.m. under a tamarind tree in their own land at Ladha village, the accused persons committed the murder of the deceased Pushpa by beating her and strangulating her and thereby committed the alleged offences. It is the further allegation of the complainant that the petitioner/accused along with the other accused used to demand dowry of Rs. 25,000/-, 1 Tola gold and other household articles. It is further alleged that the petitioner has already received an amount of Rs. 14,051 as a dowry and other articles and gold. 3. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304 (B) read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 5. 3. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304 (B) read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued contending that the present petitioner is accused No. 3 and the parents of the petitioner were already tried in S.C. No. 37/1999 by the Fast Track Court-II, Bidar and they have been acquitted by order dated 24.12.2004. Now, the present petitioner is facing a split up trial. Earlier also he moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Petition No. 200603/2016. In the said petition, this Court has directed him to appear before the Court below and seek the regular bail. In that context, he surrendered and now he is in custody. It is further contended that already the witnesses have deposed and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no material evidence to connect the present petitioner to the alleged offence and crime. As such by imposing any stringent conditions, the accused may be released on bail. It is also further contended that he is ready to face the trial. 6. On the contrary, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued contending that the petitioner has absconded since long and now with great difficulty the police have apprehended him and have sent him to custody. He has to face the trial and if at this juncture he is released on bail, he may abscond and he may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays for rejecting the bail application. 7. I have gone through the order of the Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 37/1999, the copies of the complaint, FIR and other materials, which have been produced along with the petition. 8. By going through the said records it reveals that the trial has been concluded in respect of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and in the said case except the doctor other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and on that ground the said Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the alleged offences. 8. By going through the said records it reveals that the trial has been concluded in respect of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and in the said case except the doctor other material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and on that ground the said Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the alleged offences. When that being the case, that too when the petitioner is ready to lace the trial, then under such circumstances, I feel that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail by imposing some stringent conditions, it would meet the ends of justice and even the objections raised by the learned High Court Government Pleader. In that light even though the alleged offences are punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail under the above special circumstances. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner/accused No. 3 is ordered to be released on bail for the above said offences subject to the following conditions: (i) Petitioner/accused No. 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) Petitioner/accused No. 3 shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner/accused No. 3 shall mark his attendance every fortnight before the concerned police.