Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1904 (KAR)

Santhosh B C v. State Of Karnataka

2020-09-30

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.97/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Arasikere Rural Police Station. 2. On the complaint filed by the father of the victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that petitioner No.1-accused No.1 married the complainant s daughter on 24.03.2017. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 was given dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. After marriage, for about one year the complainant s daughter was looked after well. Thereafter, petitioner No.1-accused No.1 and his parents viz., petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are accused Nos.2 and 3, and other family members started causing mental and physical harassment to get more dowry. Despite advise given by holding panchayat, the accused had not stopped their harassment. The complainant s daughter has given birth to a child, as such, the complainant was invited to attend the naming ceremony of the child. At that time, the accused had harassed the victim to force her parents to get additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. On 03.07.2020 a person by name Sri.Anand called and informed the complainant over the phone that his daughter has expired. As per the information given by the residents of Bomanahalli village it was learnt that petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the murder by causing harassment. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. The bail petition filed by them is rejected by II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hassan. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a memo would be filed for not pressing the petition in respect of petitioner No.1-accused No.1. Further it is submitted that petitioners Nos.2 and 3 i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3, are the parents of accused No.1, they are not involved in commission of the offence as alleged in the complaint. They have been arrested on 15.07.2020 and due to detention they have been put to great hardship and injustice. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that there are allegations against all the accused in respect of harassment caused to the complainant s daughter. They have been arrested on 15.07.2020 and due to detention they have been put to great hardship and injustice. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that there are allegations against all the accused in respect of harassment caused to the complainant s daughter. In the event of granting bail, they are likely to tamper the prosecution witness. 6. As could be seen from the records, initially FIR was registered on 15.07.2020 in pursuance of the complaint filed by the father of the victim. Thereafter, the brother of the victim Sowmya filed another complaint, wherein it is stated that on 03.07.2020 about 3:10 p.m., Smt.Lakshmamma, the mother of the victim, had spoken to her daughter over the phone and the victim Sowmya had informed that she was quite healthy and she was having food and thereafter, at 03:45 p.m. one of the relative of accused No.1 informed about the death of victim Sowmya. On enquiry, accused No.3-Jayamma informed that the victim was suffering from cold and cough and she was sleeping in the house. When the accused Nos.1 and 3 came back to the house, the victim did not open the door and when they entered the house from back door, she was found dead. Since the definite cause of death is not known to them, post-mortem is necessary. In pursuance of the said complaint, UDR No.10/2020 was registered. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged persons. Accused No.3-Jayamma is suffering from several ailments. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have undergone treatment for COVID-19 symptoms with the history of giddiness and chest pain. Even though she is not tested COVID-19 positive, their health condition is not good. 8. It is well settled principle that the gravity of the offences alleged alone cannot be a ground to reject the bail. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have undergone treatment for COVID-19 symptoms with the history of giddiness and chest pain. Even though she is not tested COVID-19 positive, their health condition is not good. 8. It is well settled principle that the gravity of the offences alleged alone cannot be a ground to reject the bail. In a decision in the case of Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal V/s State of Tamil Nadu,2005 1 CriLJ 883 , the Hon ble Apex Court has observed as under: The considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in nonbailable offences are the nature and seriousness of offence; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The case of the prosecution is only based on circumstantial evidence. There is no material evidence to connect petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 in the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and 304B of IPC. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion to give specific finding about the prosecution records as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. 10. As could be seen from the medical records, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being aged persons, have undergone medical treatment. The objections by the learned HCGP may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail to accused Nos.2 and 3 subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER Petition is allowed-in-part. Consequently, petition in respect of petitioner No.1-accused No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail to accused Nos.2 and 3 subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER Petition is allowed-in-part. Consequently, petition in respect of petitioner No.1-accused No.1 is dismissed as not pressed. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime No.97/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Arasikere Rural Police Station, subject to following conditions: (i) The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) The jail authorities shall make arrangements for COVID test to the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before releasing from the prison. (iii) The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. (iv) The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall appear before the concerned Court on all the future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause. (v) The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the concerned trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of. Memo to be filed by learned counsel for petitioners within a period of one week.