Somanna vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—Since both these petitions are in respect of same crime numbers, they have been taken together to dispose of them by a common order.

Crl. P. No. 5178/2014 is filed by accused Nos. 3 and 4 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Crl. P. No. 5179/2014 is filed by petitioner-accused No. 6 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release him on bail in case of his arrest for the above said offences registered in respondent police station Crime No. 253/2014.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order of the lower Court on the bail application and all other materials placed on record.

One Gangaiah, father of the deceased is the complainant in this case. The averments in the complaint in brief are that his daughter was given in marriage to one Raju-accused No. 1. At the time of marriage they gave half kilograms of gold and half kilograms of silver to the accused. After the marriage, deceased went to the house of her husband to lead marital life. She was treated properly for 15 days and thereafter, all the accused persons started giving ill-treatment and harassment to her insisting her to bring Rs. 40 lakhs as additional dowry amount. Because of this ill-treatment deceased Savitha during the month of February came to her parental place and informed the parents about the ill-treatment and the demand made by accused persons. When some panchayatdars went to advise the accused persons they made galata and did not heed to their advice. Then Savitha was sent to the house of one Shobha, relative of the complainant thinking that if she is sent there she will be relaxed mentally. It is the further allegation in the complaint that on 7.4.2014 complainant and his family members and also said Shobha went to attend Jatra and deceased was alone in the house of Shobha and when they called her over mobile, she did not respond. When they came back to the house at 7.30 p.m. in the evening door was latched then they broke open and went inside the house and seen that Savitha was lying sustaining burn injuries. When they searched the house in perplexed mood, they found one death note left by Savitha. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons for the alleged offences.

Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments has submitted that regarding the death note there is inconsistent statement in the prosecution material and as per the complaint averments, immediately when they came from Jatra, after seeing the incident they were in a perplexed mood and when searched the house, they found death note in the house. But the further statement of the complainant shows that when police were searching the house they found the death note. Hence, it is his contention that there is inconsistency with regard to the material facts and hence, at this stage, case of the prosecution that there was a death note cannot be believed. It is also submitted that as per the materials on record deceased left the house of the complainant in the month of February and the alleged incident took place in the month of April, after lapse of more than two months.

It is no doubt true that in the complaint as well as in the statement of witnesses there are allegations that the petitioners along with other accused persons used to give ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased and because of that reason she has committed suicide. But the other facts arising from the prosecution material shows that deceased went to her parental place two months in advance prior to the alleged incident and she was sent to their relatives house one Shobha wherein she has committed suicide by burning. Looking to this material it is seen that immediately prior to the alleged incident, she was not subjected to ill-treatment, since there was a gap of two months.

Regarding the dying declaration said to have been left by the deceased, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners it has been sent to expert''s opinion and the report is also awaited. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed in the matter. The alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and it is the contention of the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 Somanna is aged 56 years and suffering from ailments. Looking to these materials on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners in respect of both the petitions can be admitted to regular bail and anticipatory bail respectively.

Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 253/2014, subject to following conditions:-

(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.

(ii) They shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iii) Petitioner in Crl. P. No. 5179/2014 shall make himself available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for. He shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and execute personal bond and also surety bond.