Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 963 (KAR)

Venkatesh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-03

ASHOK G.NIJAGANNAVAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Ashok G Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Kumta Police Station Crime No.140 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. (C.C.No.375 of 2020 pending before the JMFC, Kumta). 2. The facts briefly stated in the petition are that initially on 08.04.2017 an UDR case No.15 of 2017 was registered at Kumta Police Station in respect of unnatural death namely suicide committed by the Padmavati @ Yadi on the basis of the complaint filed by the sister of the deceased namely Yashodha Ramkrishna Naik. Later on 15.05.2017 another sister of the deceased Smt Laki D/o. Timmappa Naik filed a Private Complaint No.115 of 2017 before the JMFC, Kumta. In pursuance to the order passed by the JMFC, Kumata in the said private complaint, police have registered the case on 17.05.2017 as Kumta PS Crime No.140 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 28.01.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with section 34 of IPC. The petitioner before this Court is accused No.1 in the said case and the bail petition filed by him before the Sessions Court was rejected. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court vehemently argued that, no case is made out against the petitioner/accused No.1. According to the prosecution records, petitioner/ accused No.1, accused No.2 and 4 were not in the house when the victim-Padmavati & Yadi committed suicide, but accused No.3 who is the sister-in-law of deceased, alone was at the home. Even the said accused No.3 was not at all involved in either instigating the victim to commit suicide. At the time of registering the UDR case, the elder sister of the victim herself has given a statement, wherein there are no allegations about the dowry harassment or any other harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.1 or other family members of the petitioner compelling her to commit suicide. The police have submitted the charge sheet after the lapse of two years. The police have submitted the charge sheet after the lapse of two years. At the time of investigation the police have not arrested the petitioner/accused No.1, later on 10.02.2020, the petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested, since then he is in Judicial Custody. The presence of the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Due to detention of the petitioner/accused No.1 in the prison fami ly members of the petitioner/accused No.1 wi ll be put to hardship and he is ready and wil l ing to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that even though the UDR case was registered at an initial stage, later on coming know about the real state of affairs one of the sister of the deceased has filed a private complaint disclosing the harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.1 and his family members which ultimately instigated the victim to commit suicide. There is ample evidence to show that the petitioner/accused No.1 is responsible for suicide committed by the victim. In the event of granting bail to the petitioner likely to tamper or influence the prosecution witnesses. As such, the bail petition deserves to be rejected. 6. On going through the charge sheet records, the relevant facts noticed are that, the marriage of the victim with the petitioner/accused No.1 had taken place on 23.02.2017. Within a span of two months the victim has committed the suicide. On 08.04.2017 when she committed the suicide, the police have registered the UDR case on the basis of the complaint filed by one of the elder sister Yashodha Ramkrishna Naik and there are no allegations whatsoever regarding the harassment caused for dowry or instigating the victim to commit suicide. Subsequently, on 15.05.2017 a private complaint was filed by another sister by name Smt. Laki D/o. Timmappa Naik alleging the harassment for dowry and instigation to commit suicide. Even according to the prosecution in Column No.17 of the charge sheet, the allegations are that the accused persons were causing harassment to the victim on the reason that the victim and her parents had suppressed the fact of health problem of the victim, therefore the petitioner/accused No.1 and his family members were causing harassment by not providing food properly and also teasing her that she will not bear the children because of her health problems. Because of this harassment she committed suicide. Because of this harassment she committed suicide. But, nowhere there are specific allegations about the dowry harassment. Thus, it is evident that there are 2-3 versions and there are certain variations between the sisters of the deceased/victim. Even two other independent witnesses i.e., CWs-4 and 17 have stated that the door was broken by accused No.3 to enter the premises where the victim had committed suicide. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion or give any specific finding as the same is not justifiable while considering the bail application. 7. The a decision reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 883, (Supreme Court), it is 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." 8. In another decision reported in ILR 1992 KAR 754, it is observed as under : "Even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bails is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the evidence." 9. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court can consider the grounds urged by the petitioner and grant bail if there are justifiable reasons instead of detaining the petitioner by way of punishment. 10. It is pertinent to note that initially the UDR case was registered then after the lapse of one and half month a private complaint was filed with the allegation of dowry harassment. The investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, as such there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused No.1. The only apprehension of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 is likely to influence or tamper the prosecution witnesses. The investigation has already been completed and the charge sheet has been filed, as such there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioner/accused No.1. The only apprehension of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail to the petitioner/accused No.1 is likely to influence or tamper the prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be safe guarded by imposing stringent conditions. For the forgoing reasons, there are valid grounds for granting bail, subject to the following conditions. Hence, this Court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Kumta P.S. Crime No.140 of 2017 (CC.No.375 of 2020 pending on the file of JMFC, Kumta), subject to following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh rupees only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses. 3. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court/Session court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause. 4. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case. Violation of the above conditions would result in cancellation of the bail automatically.