Bharat vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner accused u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable u/S 498-A , 302 and 201 of IPC registered in the respondent-Police Station Crime No. 102/2015.

Brief facts of the prosecution case as mentioned in the petition, in the year 1980 complainant married with Prakash Shankar Shivadakar of Nippani and she gave birth to a daughter Ranjana. Her husband died in the year 1994. Complainant was given in marriage thereafter to one Anil Dinakar Kokani and complainant gave birth to three daughters, namely, Shilpa, Deepa and Pooja and a son by name Omkar. After the death of her first husband the complainant''s daughter Ranjana was taken care of complainant''s mother Housabai. Ranjana studied upto 12th Standard. Thereafter on 18.06.1999 Ranjana was given in marriage to one Bharat Jyothi Mane, i.e., the present petitioner and her in laws used to call her as Asha. Ranjana gave birth to two sons, Prathamesh and Hrishikesh. After the marriage the petitioner has provided further education to Ranjana, who completed D.Ed., B.A., and M.A. From the last six months back the petitioner used to ill treat Ranjana by saying not to dress in a particular manner and not to speak in mobile and after knowing about the ill-treatment, the complainant and her mother Housabai, Latha and Ujwala had been to the house of her daughter wherein they have advised the petitioner to lookafter her properly. Again mother of the complainant had been to Kooganahalli on 07.06.2015 and she stayed for 15 days returned on 22.06.2015. After return Housabai informed the complainant that Ranjana used to wear jeans pant and used to go on vehicles with 2-3 mobiles. Ranjana''s husband used to suspect her character and he used to say that he will finish her.

On 26.06.2015 at about 4.30 a.m. when the complainant was in her house, Bharath has called the complainant and informed that Ranjana is suffering from heart attack and asked to come. The complainant, her mother and others had been to Kooganal and dead body of Ranjana was made to sit with the support of the wall and there were some marks on the neck and as such complainant asked as to what happened to her. It is informed that she has suffered heart attack and while taking her to the hospital in hurry, some marks have been caused. Complainant and others have conducted funeral.

Subsequently, i.e., after nearly two months, present complaint has been filed on 21.08.2015 wherein allegations are made against the present petitioner that it is he who is responsible for the death of Ranjana. On the basis of the complaint a case is registered for the alleged offences against the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner give statement that when the death has taken place, the petitioner informed the complainant and all other members of the family about the death and invited them and they all attended the funeral ceremony. He also made submission that at that time there was no suspicion raised against the present petitioner and the body was burnt in their presence only. But, after lapse of nearly two months they have filed the present complaint. Hence, it is submitted that there is no prima facie material placed to show involvement of the present petitioner in the case. He submitted that, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be considered for bail.

In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision reported in Ramaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, Apex Court and he drawn the attention of the Court to head note "C" and also relevant paragraph. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition.

Per contra learned Govt. Pleader during the course of arguments made submission that even after there is a delay in filing the complaint but it is only after 4-5 days the complainant and the family members came to know about involvement of the present petitioner and because of that reason the present complaint has been filed. But, however, learned Govt. Pleader submitted that at the first instance there was no complaint, no case was registered and even Postmortem was also not conducted before the body was burnt. Hence, she submitted that as the material go to show about involvement of the present petitioner and as he was telling before the complainant about the conduct and character of the deceased Ranjana and he told before her that he is going to finish her. Hence, she submitted that the offence alleged u/S 302 of IPC is a serious offence and petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, Complaint and other materials produced. So also, the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi. I have also perused the decision and the principle enunciated in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The materials go to show that when the death has taken place the husband and his family members have not at all cremated the body all of a sudden without informing the complainant and family members. The material clearly goes to show that they have informed about the death that it is because of heart attack. It is also stated, as mentioned in the complaint that petitioner also informed them while shifting her in the car to the hospital for treatment there were some injuries caused to her. So, having explained to the complainant before performing funeral of Ranjana. If at all there is any sort of suspicion the complainant should have filed the complaint immediately after the incident or at least within a reasonable period of time. But, looking to the date of complaint that is filed as there is lapse of nearly two months, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner has made out a case for his release on bail. So far as the apprehension of the prosecution is concerned, reasonable condition can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Hence, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offences alleged subject to the following conditions.

1) He shall execute a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

2) He shall not tamper with the prosecution witness directly or indirectly

3) He shall appear before the Court regularly.