Mallikarjun vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by petitioner-Accused No. 1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B R/w. Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and subsequently after the death of the deceased Section 302 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No. 108/2015.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Accused No. 1 and also the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No. 1 made the submission that the deceased was given in marriage to the present petitioner about three years back prior to the incident and the marriage was conducted in mass marriage. He submitted that though, there is allegations that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment by her husband-present petitioner and in-laws and other family members insisting her to bring gold from her parental place, the same cannot be believed as the marriage itself was taken in mass marriage. It is also his submission that though the original case was initiated against six accused persons, subsequently the case against accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 has been dropped. Learned counsel further made the submission that the mother-in-law of the deceased has already been granted anticipatory bail and the father-in-law of the deceased has also been granted bail by the order of this Court. It is his submission that looking to the prosecution materials the allegations are one and the same as against all the three accused that they administered poison to the deceased and caused the death of the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that on parity ground the present petitioner is also entitled to bail. He further submitted that he has produced copy of the said order dated 11.08.2015 wherein the present petitioner along with his father moved before this Court seeking their release on bail and this Court by the said order granted bail to the father of the present petitioner, however, liberty was reserved to the present petitioner that after completing the investigation he may move the Court. Accordingly, the present petitioner approached by way of the present petition. Hence, the learned counsel submitted, by imposing reasonable conditions, the present petitioner may be admitted to bail.

Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that the ground of parity is not made applicable to the case of the present petitioner. The mother-in-law of the deceased was granted anticipatory bail because she is woman and looking to the bail order of this Court granting bail to the father-in-law of the deceased as he was 64 years old. She also made a submission that looking to the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation they prima facie go to show the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence and incident has taken place in the house of husband of the deceased and it is within the statutory period of 7 years from the date of the marriage. Hence, there is presumption in favour of the prosecution and the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and the order passed by this Court dated 11.08.2014 passed in Crl.P. No. 100927/2015 and also perused all other materials produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein and the grounds urged in the bail petition. The allegations of the prosecution against the present petitioner is that he along with his family members administered poison to the deceased and caused her death. Pursuance of the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer and more particularly the statement of CW.12 Yellappa who has stated that on the date of the incident when the galata was going on in the house of the deceased and the present petitioner herein, he immediately went to the house of the present petitioner and saw that the petitioner and his father and mother were dragging the deceased and at that time he saw the petitioner/accused No. 1 the preset petitioner was holding a plastic bottle in his hand and he put the poison into the mouth of the deceased, at that time the in-laws of the deceased were holding her. Seeing the same he ran away towards his house. His statement also goes to show that shortly thereafter the present petitioner came to his house and requested him that his wife is to be taken to the hospital and requested to drive the tractor. I have perused the P.M. report. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased has opined that it is because of the poisoning. This material prima facie establishes the involvement of the present petitioner in committing the alleged offence. As submitted by the learned HCGP the alleged incident took place in the house of the present petitioner and it is within 7 years from the date of marriage and also there are allegations that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment prior to her death insisting her to bring two tolas of gold from her parental house.

Now coming to the ground of parity as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, looking to the allegations in the complaint the present petitioner administered the poison to the deceased. Apart from that the father of the present petitioner who was 64 years aged that was main consideration taken by this Court while granting bail in favour of the father-in-law of the deceased. So far as mother-in-law of the deceased is concerned, as she is woman she was granted anticipatory bail. Looking to the order passed by this Court dated 11.08.2015 though liberty was given to the present petitioner to move this Court after filing the charge-sheet, but in para No. 7 of the said order it has been observed by this Court that nobody would like to consume poison unless there are compelling circumstances which forced the person to take a sad decision to consume poison in order to put an end to the life. The petitioner/accused No. 1 being; the husband has not come out with any plausible explanation as to what made her to consume poison. Hence, these observations made by this Court also go to show that the prima facie case has been made out as against the present petitioner and though earlier it was of the offences punishable under Sections 304(B), 498(A), subsequently after the death of the deceased Section 302 has been inserted in the case which is serious offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the same is rejected.