Sunil Kumar vs The State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B, J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, r/w 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 11/2014.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument made the submission that the present petitioner has not at all given any sort of ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased nor he insisted her to bring the dowry amount. The counsel also made the submission that he was treating his wife affectionately. He also made the submission that Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of one Janakamma-maid servant working in the house of the deceased as well the present petitioner. He made the submission that, if really there was such ill-treatment and harassment, the deceased could have told the same before the maid servant. He also made the submission that regarding the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner was telling to the deceased not to begotten the child and it was only for a temporary period as there was some hurdles in having the children. The counsel further submitted that for the purpose of starting their medical practice, petitioner might have asked for money but he never insisted the deceased to bring dowry amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as alleged by the prosecution. Learned counsel further made the submission that the other accused persons were granted bail by the order of this Court. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument made the submission that looking to the prosecution material, allegations in the complaint so also the statement of all the witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, they prima facie, goes to show that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment in connection with the dowry amount. Hence, he submitted that the death has taken place within 11/2 year of the marriage that too in the house of the present petitioner wherein, the petitioner and the deceased were only staying in the said house in Patalamma layout, Audugodi, Bangalore. Hence, he submitted that these materials prima facie goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence and he is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the averments made in the complaint and the statement of witnesses. The allegations in the complaint goes to show that immediately after the marriage which was performed on 12.05.2012, for some time the deceased, present petitioner and other family members were staying together and during that time also there was no ill-treatment and harassment. There afterwards, for two years the present petitioner had been to abroad and he came back. After his return from abroad, the petitioner started residing at Bangalore along with his wife-deceased. There are also allegations that he was telling to the deceased not to begotten the children and he was not allowing her to pursue her education. He was insisted her to bring the dowry amount and in that connection he was giving ill-treatment and harassment. Even, he was threatening the deceased that he will divorce her and the allegations goes to show that because of these ill-treatment and harassment, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 11.01.2014. So far as the allegations with regard to the other members of the family is concerned, it is also mentioned in the complaint that they instigated the petitioner-accused No. 1 to insist the deceased to bring additional dowry amount from her parental house. This Court while considering their bail petitions, taken into consideration that the other accused persons were residing in Kerala state at Palakkad and the petitioner and his wife were residing separately in Bangalore when the incident has taken place. This Court has granted bail to other accused persons. But looking to the materials as against the present petitioner is concerned prima facie, the prosecution has placed materials to show his involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. Therefore, the ground of parity is not made applicable to the present petitioner not only that regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the date of the incident in the morning, when the; maid servant had been to the house to do the work in the said house, deceased could have explained about ill-treatment and harassment. So that itself is not a ground to reject the entire material collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and when there are statement of witnesses of relatives and independent witnesses prima facie make out a case about the involvement of the present petitioner. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, petition is rejected.