Malatesh, Manappa, Virupakshappa and Basavaraj vs The State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

The petitioners are brothers. Petitioner No. 1 is said to have been married one Dakshayini. Her sister was married to Basavaraj the other petitioner. They were all living together. It is alleged by the complainant, namely, the brother of Dakshayini and Gouravva that, at the time of marriage, the bridegroom brothers were provided dowry of Rs. 30,000/- and 10 grams of gold each. There was initially, harmony in their family. Thereafter, it is alleged that the petitioners started ill-treating the complainant''s sisters and they were demanding dowry. The complainant was an orphan and was living with his grandparents and he was hardly in a position to provide any such dowry. It is in this background that, on 27.03.2014, he had received information that, Dakshayini had been admitted to hospital and it was also claimed that Gouravva had informed the complainant that, Dakshayini had been throttled by petitioner No. 1 and therefore, she fell unconscious and was admitted to hospital. It transpires that, she died seven days later in the hospital.

Notwithstanding the same, on the allegation that Dakshayini, the deceased, was throttled to death, a case has been registered against the petitioners. Their application for bail has been rejected on the ground that the allegations are of a serious nature and the matter is under investigation. Therefore, they could not be enlarged on bail.

The learned Government Pleader submits that, he has no information about the cause of death and he seeks time to obtain further instructions. In this background, having regard to the circumstance that the deceased was living for more than seven days after the alleged incident and she had died in hospital, the theory of the deceased having been driven to commit suicide or the petitioner having throttled her is diluted. In any event, as a matter of prudence, it would be sufficient that, petitioner No. 1 is denied bail for the time being, while reserving liberty to move the Court afresh on further information being available as to the cause of death of the deceased.

Even if it is assumed that the deceased had been throttled by petitioner No. 1, the role of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 is not clear. Hence, the said petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail on each of them furnishing a self bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with a solvent surety each, for a like sum subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses;

(ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer;

(iii) The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly and;

(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.

In terms of the above, the petition stands allowed partly.