Seetharamanaika vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No. 1 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 302 read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 208/2012.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the complaint averments the allegations are same against all the persons and other accused persons have been already granted with bail. Hence, on the ground of parity, petitioner is also entitled to be granted with bail. He has also submitted that in the statement of one Rajappa who is actually not the eyewitnesses to the incident it is stated that people were talking at the spot and on that basis he came to know that deceased Lakshmi expired because of the ill-treatment given by the accused insisting her to bring additional dowry amount. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 have been already granted bail by the order of this Court. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be granted with bail.

As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the materials placed on record, the death has taken place within seven years of the date of marriage and in the house of the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased. The statement of the relatives as well as other witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation shows that immediately prior to the incident, deceased was subjected to cruel treatment both physical and mental, insisting her to bring dowry amount. These materials prima facie show that death is caused due to the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her.

I have perused the order passed by this Court in respect of father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased, the order dated 14.6.2013 passed in Crl.P. No. 2756/2013 produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner wherein it is observed by this Court that the said eyewitness one Rajappa has not implicated these petitioners squarely, though the witness has stated that he was one of the persons who had sought to put out the fire, when he saw that the deceased was set on fire, and this by itself would not implicate these petitioners who are said to be father-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. Accordingly, the Court has enlarged the petitioners therein on bail.

Looking to the complaint averments it is seen that the father of the deceased has lodged the complaint alleging that after the marriage petitioner was continuously ill-treating and harassing his daughter. It is also mentioned in the complaint that at the time of marriage 80 grams of gold and Rs. 60,000/- cash was paid as dowry. In spite of that his son-in-law Seetharamanaika was ill-treating and harassing the deceased everyday stating that the dowry given to them is not sufficient and was insisting her to go and bring additional dowry amount. It is no doubt true at the end of the complaint it is also mentioned in general that all the four persons assaulted her and caused her death. But the specific allegation is against petitioner who is accused No. 1, the husband of the deceased and it was the reason for this Court to grant bail to the petitioners in the order referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The prosecution material prima facie shows the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Therefore, so far as the petitioner is concerned, as there are definite and specific allegations of ill-treatment and harassment insisting the deceased to bring additional dowry amount and that it is the reason for her death, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.