Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 70 (KAR)

Gobru v. State Of Karnataka

2020-01-08

H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner/accused No.1 in Criminal Case No.247/2019 (arising out of Crime No.9/2019, of Kunchavaram Police Station), pending before the learned Prl.J.M.F.C., Court, Chincholi, has filed this petition seeking his enlargement on bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as Cr.P.C.), for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as D.P. Act). 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the marriage between accused No.1 and deceased Taribai, was conducted on 19.2.2019. She met with an unnatural death on 31.3.2019, which according to the medical report produced by the prosecution is due to consumption of organophosphorus insecticide. The mother of the deceased is the complainant in this case who has alleged in the complaint that, soon after her daughters marriage, that too, not even beyond ten days, the accused who are the husband and father-in-law of deceased-Taribai were pestering her to bring the balance dowry amount of Rs.40,000/-. In the process, they are said to have pledged three tolas of gold said to have been given as a part of dowry in a Bank and availed a loan of Rs.42,000/-. It is in that connection, on 30.3.2019, deceased Taribai is said to have gone to her mothers house along with her husband with a request to pay for the balance amount of Rs.40,000/-. However, the mother, who is the complainant herein, would not able to arrange for the balance amount. By pacifying them, the deceased was sent back to her husbands house. On the very next day i.e., on 31.3.2019, at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant came to know that the deceased Taribai had consumed poison. Even according to the complainant, the husband of the deceased, who is the petitioner herein, complainant and others shifted Tarabai to a hospital, where she lost her breath on the same evening at about 7.28 p.m. The complainant alleges that it was due to the harassment for dowry by the accused, including the present petitioner, her daughter met with an unnatural death. After completing the investigation, the respondent-police have filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits in his argument that the reason for the alleged suicide of the deceased Taribai is not the demand for dowry, but, she was disappointed when three tolas of gold given to her in her marriage was pledged in a Bank by her husband and father-in-law for availing a loan of Rs.42,000/-. It is for that act, she has committed suicide, as such, there is no nexus between her death and alleged dowry harassment. He further submitted that there appears to be no direct allegation made against the accused stating that he demanded dowry either with the complainant or anyone member in the parental home of the deceased. Secondly, when the complainant is said to have taken her daughter on the same day i.e., on 30.3.2019 in the evening to her house, had really there been any seriousness in the situation regarding alleged demand for dowry, probably the complainant being the mother of the deceased would have stayed with her daughter on that night till the alleged situation comes to a normalcy. But, even according to the complainant, after leaving her daughter in her husbands house, for no valid reasons, she left to her another daughters house leaving the deceased all alone in her house. Thirdly, even according to the complainant, when she came to know that her daughter has consumed poison, it was the present petitioner who among others has assisted her in shifting the deceased Taribai to hospital. All these aspects at this stage prevents this Court to prima facie come to a conclusion that there are serious incriminating materials against the present petitioner to deny him the relief of bail. Added to the above, a perusal of the charge sheet paper would also at this stage go to show that the allegations levelled against accused No.2, who is none else than the father of the petitioner, were in no way less or inferior to that of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Added to the above, a perusal of the charge sheet paper would also at this stage go to show that the allegations levelled against accused No.2, who is none else than the father of the petitioner, were in no way less or inferior to that of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. As such, when accused No.2 has been enlarged on bail by this Court in Criminal Petition No.201177/2019, on 23.9.2019, I do not find any reason to deny the same benefit to the present petitioner on the ground of parity. However, the apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may abscond himself and may not be available for trial may be checked by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The petitioner Gobru, son of Kishan Rathod, be enlarged on bail in Criminal Case No.247/2019 (arising out of Crime No.9/2019, of Kunchavaram Police Station), pending in the Court of learned Prl.J.M.F.C., Court, Chincholi, for the offences punishable under 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, subject to the following conditions: i) That the petitioner shall execute a personal bond for sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging authority/Court. ii) Petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing. iii) Petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents in any manner. iv) Petitioner shall give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Investigating Officer as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.