Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 861 (KAR)

Vivek Shankar v. State Of Karnataka

2020-05-11

N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up through Video Conference today. 2. Learned counsel Smt. Leela. P, for petitioner and Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for respondent are present. 3. The petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. wherein the petitioner seeks grant of bail in Crime No.75/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 304B r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, of the respondent Police Station. The date of complaint is 01.03.2020. He was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.03.2020. 4. Previously, the petitioner had made application before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, but learned Judge refused to accept the bail petition, stating that the urgency is not involved in the present petition and communicated the said order through an Email on 08.04.2020. 5. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent. 6. Heard. 7. The mother of the petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 moved a bail application before the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and the said application came to be allowed and accused No.2 was granted bail. As could be seen from the orders passed by the learned XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, the substance of the complaint is that the marriage of the Mukambi @ Reshma was solemnized with accused No.1. 8. A complaint was lodged on 01.03.2020 by Lakshmi Putta who is the mother of Mukambi @ Reshma and the case was registered by respondent Police in Cr.No.75/2020 against the petitioner and his mother for the offences punishable under Sections 304B r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody after he was arrested. 9. It is stated that accused No.1 married Mukambi @ Reshma at Dharmasthala on 01.05.2019 and at the time of marriage various gold articles like gold chain weighing about 25 grms, ring weighing about 8 grms were given to petitioner, and another chain weighing about 80 grms was given to deceased Reshma. However, in the marital house, life of Mukambi @ Reshma was not good or even average one and in this connection, she was harassed and humiliated and being objected to every trivial matter. However, in the marital house, life of Mukambi @ Reshma was not good or even average one and in this connection, she was harassed and humiliated and being objected to every trivial matter. The petitioner and his mother made the life of Mukambi @ Reshma very difficult and threatened her of death otherwise they would kill her. 10. It stated that the mother of the petitioner used to carry tales against said Reshma and was instigating him to commit offence including harassment and torture on Reshma. On 01.03.2020 at about 07:03 a.m. the aunt of petitioner telephoned Eshwarnaik who is the second son-in-law of complainant and informed that Mukambi @ Reshma is not feeling well and asked him to come to the house of petitioner and when the complainant and her family members came to Bangalore to the house of Mukambai @ Reshma, for their shock and surprise, there they saw her dead body being laid on the bed in the house of accused. Hence, complaint is lodged and the same is registered in Cr.No.75/2020. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody and entire family of the petitioner is suffering because of his judicial custody. The economical and social responsibility of the petitioner has come to a grinding halt. She would further submit that the deceased was not informed about the previous marriage of Mukabmi @ Reshma and also she begetting a child and it was also reported that first husband of the Mukambi @ Reshma was dead. The petitioner has no criminal antecedents rendering for rejection of bail petition. Petitioner is ready to comply with the conditions that may be imposed on him and he is ready to offer surety in accordance with directions of this Court. 12. Learned Government Pleader for respondent opposes the bail petition of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not made out ground for getting bail. The stay of the petitioner in judicial custody has no relevance for his release. The intentions of the petitioner are not good. The conduct of the petitioner is threatening also. He does not appear to be a law abiding citizen and has committed heinous offence. 13. The offence alleged against the petitioner are: Sections 304B R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 14. The intentions of the petitioner are not good. The conduct of the petitioner is threatening also. He does not appear to be a law abiding citizen and has committed heinous offence. 13. The offence alleged against the petitioner are: Sections 304B R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. 14. I have perused the application and also complaint with reference to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 15. Petitioner is in judicial custody since from 03.03.2020 and learned counsel for petitioner also submits that the apprehension of Covid-19 is surrounding. It was also submitted that petitioner has no criminal antecedents. I take the note of situation thrown by Covid-19 and restlessness in the society. There is no complaint of interference to the investigation by the petitioner. The application filed by the petitioner before the District Court came to be rejected for want of urgency as per the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. 16. In the over all circumstances, I find no prejudice would be caused, if the petitioner is released on bail. However, apprehensions of the prosecution may be resolved by imposing conditions. 17. Hence, the petition is allowed and Petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.59/2020 registered by respondent police against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304B r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and with a surety of a person possessing immovable properties for the likesum. ii) The petitioner-accused shall not terrorize the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and shall not come into contact with the complainant or his family members. iii) The petitioner shall undergo medical check-up immediately upon his release on bail, by suitable medical officer and quarantine himself exclusively in his house for a period of 14 days from the date of release unless he is required for hospitalization to prevent further complications regarding to the fact of Covid- 19. iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru city without prior permission of investigating officer.