Baby and Others vs State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioners/accused No. 2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 139/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

The averments made in the complaint in brief are that mother of the deceased one Lakshmamma lodged the complaint before the police alleging that her daughter was given in marriage with Manjunath on 12.06.2013 and at the time of marriage she had given 80 grams gold ornaments in total and subsequent to the marriage, the first accused had taken her daughter and for about three months they lead happy marital life. There afterwards, the accused persons were insisting the deceased to bring the gold ornaments given to her, which she had kept in her parental place. It is also the allegation in the complaint that they were giving torture to the deceased in that connection and then she brought the gold ornaments and gave to the accused persons. In spite of that they were giving ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased. Further allegations in the complaint that daughter of the complainant was working at Touch Point Company, near Bashyam Circle, Rajajinagar, Bangalore and when she had been to the office she got vomit and immediately her colleagues have taken her to the Karnataka Medical Centre Hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, at about 11.30 a.m. and after the diagnosis, the doctor has opined that she had consumed poison and there afterwards she died at about 4.30 p.m. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments submitted that after the marriage and till the date of alleged incident there was no complaint by the deceased against the accused persons about any sort of ill-treatment and harassment to her. He also made the submission that it was a love marriage between accused No. 1 and the deceased and they belongs to different community. Therefore, the question of demanding dowry does not arise. Learned counsel also made the submission that, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument and consideration that she consumed poison, the reaction will take place immediately within half an hour. But, in this case that has not happened, whatever alleged in the complaint that itself goes to show that she got vomit in the office, where she was working. Hence, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it may be because of other reasons or due to work pressure. Hence, he submits that present petitioners, who are in-laws of the deceased are totally unconnected with the incident and there is no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the present petitioners and hence, submitted to allow the petition and to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

As against this, the learned HCGP during the course of his arguments submitted that complaint averments go to show that at the time of marriage the gold ornaments were given to the accused No. 1, so also to the deceased. Subsequently, accused persons insisted to give the ornaments given to the deceased and they were also given into the hands of the accused persons. Hence, he made the submission that as the accused persons insisting the deceased to bring more dowry amount, that was the reason for the deceased to consume poison and hence, petitioners are responsible for the death of the deceased and they are not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and other materials placed on record. Looking to the materials collected during investigation, so also the averments made in the compliant, even according to the case of the prosecution that the deceased had got vomit in the office where she was working but not in the house and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it may be because of work pressure under which she was working or for any other reason. Therefore, the reason for which she consumed the poison is the matter to be ascertained after recording the evidence. So far as the petitioners are concerned, who are in-laws and they have contended that they have not at all involved in the commission of alleged offence and they have also undertaken that they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners/accused Nos. 2 and 3 can be enlarged on bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No. 139/2014, subject to the following conditions:

"i. Each 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 concerned Court.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for.

iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of copy of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond."