Parusharam vs The State

Budihal R.B., J.—This is a petition filed by the petitioner/accused No. 1 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 302, 504, read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code registered in the respondent-police station Crime No. 231/2015.

The brief facts of prosecution case are that one Shobha Laxman Bajanti, aged about 47 years, has filed the complaint before the police alleging that she is living with her family members having four children and about six years ago her daughter Gourawa and Jayashree were given in marriage to a person from Honaga and Parusharam Bhajantn respectively and Jayashree had three children. Since six months, husband of Jayashree and her mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law, maternal uncle of the present petitioner and uncle and aunt of the present petitioner were abusing and assaulting the deceased. Petitioner was harassing and beating her on the accusation that she was having illicit relation with another person. Jayashree used to tell this before the complainant on mobile as well as whenever she visited her maternal home. It is further alleged that whenever she asks earrings from her husband he refused to buy for her and used to tell her to get it from her parents. It is further alleged that on 09.09.2015 at about 2.00 p.m. the present petitioner telephoned Yallappa brother of Jayashree and told him that conduct of his sister is not proper and he should take her back and so saying petitioner disconnected the call. Thereafter, another daughter of complainant Gourawa telephoned Parusharam but call was taken by Mahadevi aunt of Parusharam and said Mahadevi informed that Jayashree had consumed poison and they are in Hukken Government Hospital. When they came and saw Jayashree, she was already dead. On the basis of the said complaint, the case has been registered against the present petitioner and other accused persons.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No. 1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that sofar as the other accused persons are concerned, the m-laws filed petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and that was allowed by the Sessions Judge and they were granted bail. He made the submission that other accused persons except the present petitioner they filed a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. and that was also allowed by the Court. Learned counsel made the submission that though the alleged offence is under Section 302 of IPC, looking to the materials placed on record and the complaint averments the said offence will not be attracted. He submitted that the present petitioner is having the apprehension of his arrest at the hands of the respondent police. Hence, the counsel submitted that since all other accused persons have already been granted with bail, by imposing reasonable conditions, the present petitioner may also be admitted to the anticipatory bail.

Per contra, the learned Government Pleader made the submission that the case is till in the investigation stage. The alleged incident has taken place in the house of the present petitioner. The alleged incident is also within 7 years of the marriage. Learned government pleader further made the submission that looking to the complaint averments, serious allegations are made against accused No. 1, the present petitioner, that he was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and he used to assault her. She made further submission that looking to the statement of the neighbors, they clearly go to show that at about 2.00 p.m., they heard crying noise of the deceased and they went to the house of present petitioner and advised him. Learned government pleader made the submission that the present petitioner is a goonda element and if anticipatory bail is granted, he is going to put hurdles in the progress of the investigation. Learned Government Pleader also made the submission that the respondent-police have opened rowdy-sheet against the petitioner. Hence, she submits that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in the case.

Looking to the averments made in the complaint, serious allegations are made against the present petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased and when the incident has taken place in the house of the present petitioner he is responsible for accounting the same as to how the incident has taken place. The investigation of the case is still going on. Therefore, considering the nature of the materials placed on record, I am of the clear opinion that the matter requires detailed interrogation of the present petition in this case. Therefore, the present petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.