Divakar vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—Petitioner is the husband of the deceased-Prathima Yadav. Said Prathima Yadav was married to the Petitioner herein on 12.11.2009, After the marriage deceased and the Petitioner were living at No. 819, 8th ''C'' Main, 2nd Stage, 3rd Block, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore.

On 11.05.2011 between 5.30pm and 8.30pm said Prathima Yadav was found dead in the matrimonial home apparently on account of hanging to a ceiling fan. Smt. Anupama Yadav elder sister of the deceased to whom the deceased had called at about 5.30pm on the same day and had informed that she would come to the sister''s house and since there was no response from the deceased, she came to the matrimonial home of the deceased at about 8.30pm and saw her sister in a hanging position from a ceiling fail. Thereafter, Anupama Yadav lodged a report at about 11.20pm on 11.05.2011 about the unnatural death of her sister-Prathima Yadav. On the basis of the said report Police registered the case in Crime No. 219/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304-B reference with Section 34 of IPC against the Petitioner and others.

During the investigation, inquest was held over the dead body. Later dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. During the investigation, Petitioner was apprehended and when produced before the learned Magistrate he was remanded to judicial custody on 1205.2011 since then he has been in judicial custody. His prayer for bail made before the learned Sessions Judge came to be rejected. Therefore, Petitioner is before this Court seeking relief of bail.

Petition is opposed by the Respondent State. I have heard both sides and perused the records made available,

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to indicate that the death of the deceased was dowry death within, the meaning of Section 304-B of IPC, therefore, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable u/s 304-B of IPC as such Petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

At this stage, there appears to be no serious dispute that the deceased Prathima Yadav died in the matrimonial house between 5.30pm and 8.30pm on 11.05.2011. Apparent cause of death appears to be on account of hanging, Of course, at this stage, doctor who conducted postmortem examination has not yet furnished his opinion as to the cause of death since he is awaiting the report from FSL regarding chemical examination of the viscera preserved at the time of postmortem examination. It appears, the viscera of the deceased was preserved in the light of the allegation that the deceased was killed by her husband and other relatives and thereafter, she was hanged. However, perusal of the copy of the postmortem report, which is made available by the learned High Court Government Pleader, prima facie does not indicate the presence of any poisonous materials. Assuming for the purpose of arguments that even if the death of the deceased was on account of the consumption of the poison, at tins stage, there are no prima facie materials to indicate that there was any forcible administration of poison. At best death of the deceased, at this stage, could be termed as under unnatural circumstances. However, materials available on record at this stage, prima facie do not indicate that the deceased had been subjected to any kind of cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry soon before her death to term her death as dowry death within the meaning of Section 304-B of IPC. Therefore, at this stage, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable u/s 304-B of IPC. Offence u/s 498A is not punishable with death or life of imprisonment Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of the offence alleged at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that there are no grounds to deny the bail to the Petitioner. Apprehension of the prosecution with regard to tampering of prosecution witnesses could be allayed by imposing strict conditions. In this view of the matter, Petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

In the result, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No. 219/2011 of Basaveshwaranagar Police Station, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Learned Magistrate/Learned Session Judge and subject to further conditions:

i) that, the Petitioner shall not tamper or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner, ii) that the Petitioner shall appear before the I.O. as and when co required and shall cooperate in the investigation of the case.

ii) that the Petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing without fail.

iv) that the Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Court of Sessions concerned without express permission of the concerned Court.

v) that the Petitioner shall mark his attendance with the I.O. on every 15th of each calendar month till the filing of the final report.