Manikanta vs State

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''the IPC'', for brevity) read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

It is contended that the petitioner had married one Geetha, D/o. Rangaswamy ten months prior to the date of the complaint, which was filed on 21.07.2014 by one Janakamma, the mother of Geetha stating that the petitioner was ill-treating Geetha from inception and that on account of the constant harassment and cruelty meted out to her, she had taken the extreme step of committing suicide by drowning. It is in that background that the petitioner has been taken into custody and his bail petition before the court below has been rejected.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the allegations are false. On the other hand, it was a situation where the petitioner and the deceased had fallen in love and had married much against the wishes of the family of Geetha and hence, the family had been ostracized by the village on account of the petitioner having married Geetha against the wishes of her parents and the other members of the family. Therefore, she was never visiting her maternal home. During the ''Ashada maasa'' however, the complainant had made a request to the mother of the petitioner to send Geetha home, as it was inauspicious for her to live along with her husband during the period. But since the petitioner''s mother had refused, Geetha had been thrown into severe depression and she had committed suicide. There was neither a demand for dowry and there was also no possibility of the petitioner securing any dowry from Geetha''s parents. Thus, the learned counsel would point out that except the complaint by the complainant, there is not even a single witness cited in support of the prosecution.

The charge-sheet has been filed and there is no indication of any other person supporting the circumstances which are alleged. Therefore, it would have to be proved at the trial as to whether or not there was any such conduct on the part of the petitioner, which could be construed as such cruelty, driving the deceased to commit suicide.

Though the learned State Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose and would submit that the mere absence of witnesses by itself would not indicate that the petitioner was innocent of any crime and since there can be no denial that Geetha is no more and she had died an unnatural death within seven years of her marriage, the presumption in law is otherwise and therefore, the petitioner ought to be denied bail.

However, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement on bail, as there is doubt as to whether the petitioner was guilty of such conduct as is alleged. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

(iii) The petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing and shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority.

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court below without prior permission.