Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1223 (KAR)

Mohit Verma v. State of Karnataka

2017-09-05

RATHNAKALA

body2017
ORDER : Rathnakala, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. The petitioner along with co-accused is charge sheeted by the respondent-police in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 302, 120(B) read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for brevity 'the Act')- The co-accused are his sister and brother-in-law. 2. The case of the prosecution is, the petitioner married the deceased after having an affair with her, at Punjab on 25.11.2016. Dowry in cash and kind was given to him by the parents of the deceased, sufficient gold ornaments was given to the bride and the parents had undertaken to give a car and cash of Rs. 5,00,000 subsequently after marriage. The couple were residing in an apartment at Bengaluru. The petitioner was teasing the deceased that car and the cash as assured by her parents is not given and she was not befitting to be a house wife. He was torturing her physically and mentally. Accused Nos. 2 and 3/the brother-in-law and sister of the petitioner used to join him in pestering her for car and additional dowry. Accused persons conspired to finish her off. On 8.4.2017, the petitioner picked up quarrel with the deceased about cooking and the quarrel continued until late noon and both of them went to the terrace quarreling with each other. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 also joined them and accused Nos. 1 to 3 pushed her from the terrace and the victim died due to head injury on the way to the hospital. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of petitioner. 3. Perused the chargesheet materials. There is enough material from the statement of the witnesses implicating the accused for the offences under Sections 498(A), 304(B) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. So far the offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, the neighbors have heard the galata from the flat, where the couple were residing and thereafter they heard big sound when the deceased fell on the ground from the terrace. As per the medical opinion, death is due to head injury. Apart from that, several abrasion injuries were also found on the dead body. 4. Mr. As per the medical opinion, death is due to head injury. Apart from that, several abrasion injuries were also found on the dead body. 4. Mr. MRC Manohar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the offence and he is a Software Engineer. Since investigation is complete, he may be enlarged on bail and he undertakes to abide by any condition that may be imposed on him by this Court. 5. Learned HCGP opposing the petition submits that prior to the incident, the deceased had called upon her parents who are residing at Punjab and complained that she has been tortured. The mother of the deceased stated that on 8.4.2017, this petitioner had complained over phone that she is not a proper match for him and she is not able to cook and do the work etc. The deceased had complained that he is pestering her for money as assured during the marriage talks and she was weeping at that time. In respect of the presence of the accused persons at the place of offence and the row over the dowry and car, there is a prima facie material on record which would make out offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Considering the nature of offences for which he is chargesheeted, if he is enlarged on bail, he will definitely disappear and also cause disappearance of the evidence. 6. In the light of the above submissions, perused the charge-sheet papers. The co-accused are on bail. The case with regard to the overt-act of pushing the deceased from the terrace is dependent on the circumstantial evidence. The petitioner hails from Punjab and presently working as Software Engineer at Bengaluru. If his presence is secured on the hearing dates, there is no impediment to allow the petition. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 122/2017 registered by the respondent Police, subject to the following conditions: (i) He shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh only) with two local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 122/2017 registered by the respondent Police, subject to the following conditions: (i) He shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees two lakh only) with two local surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The sureties shall furnish their original title deeds of the property and Identity/Adhaar Card for perusal of the Court, and they shall not have previous history of offering surety to the accused persons in other criminal cases; (ii) He shall attend the Court regularly on all hearing dates; (iii) He shall not prevail upon or terrorize the prosecution witnesses; (iv) He shall mark his attendance before the respondent-Investigating Officer on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.