Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1484 (KAR)

Muniraju v. State of Karnataka

2017-11-09

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release him on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, registered in respondent - police station Crime No.62/2017. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are, the mother of deceased is the complainant in this case, wherein she has stated that the deceased was given in marriage to accused No.1 and for a period of one year she was happy with accused No.1 and there was one child but subsequently died. The further allegations in the complaint goes to show that accused No.1 and other members of the family including the present petitioner started giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased stating that whatever the dowry she had brought was inadequate and they were insisting her to bring dowry from her parental place. The further allegations are, because of this ill-treatment, the deceased left the house of her husband and went to her parental place and was staying with her parents. The further averments in the complaint go to show that, when the complainant had been to attend coolie work, somebody informed her that there was smoke emanating from her house. When the complainant went and saw, the deceased sustained burn injuries and committed suicide. 3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that it is a dowry death case and even the deceased left the death note, wherein the name of present petitioner is also mentioned in the complaint as well as in the death note. Hence, he submitted that as the offences alleged are serious, petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that in the death note, apart from accused Nos.1 to 3, other persons names i.e., accused Nos.4 to 8 is also mentioned. The allegations are bald and vague as against the present petitioner. Accused Nos.4 to 8 have already been granted bail by the order of the trial Court. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made the submission that in the death note, apart from accused Nos.1 to 3, other persons names i.e., accused Nos.4 to 8 is also mentioned. The allegations are bald and vague as against the present petitioner. Accused Nos.4 to 8 have already been granted bail by the order of the trial Court. He also made the submission that, accused No.2, the father-in- law of the deceased expired yesterday. He further made the submission that, even perusing the prosecution materials, there is no prima-facie case as against the present petitioner and he is residing separately since 17 years. Hence, he made the submission that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to anticipatory bail. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge sheet is already submitted before the concerned Court. 6. Looking to the materials placed on record, the admitted fact even according to the prosecution case and as per the complaint averments that, four months prior to the alleged incident, she was staying in her parents house. Therefore, there is no proximity of time between the allegations against the accused person and the incident of committing suicide by the deceased. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed, the petitioner has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view of these materials, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. 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 solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to co-operate with further investigation. (ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. (iii) Petitioner has to make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to co-operate with further investigation. (iv) The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.