This is a bail petition filed by a husband accused of dowry harassment and abetment to suicide. The court rejected the petition, rejecting parity with the petitioner's parents who were on bail, noting the early date of the marriage raised a presumption against the accused.
Petition for bail under Section 439 CrPC rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15219 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
Ritesh, S/o. Ashok Aradi, Aged 31 years, Occupation: Finance work, Resident of Dattanagar, Shahabazar, District: Gulbarga. … PETITIONER.
(By Shri Avinash A. Uploankar, Advocate)
AND:
The State, Through Mahila Police Station, District: Gulbarga. … RESPONDENT.
(Shri S.S. Aspalli, Government Pleader)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to release the petitioner on bail in Crime NO.63/2012 of Mahila Police Station, Gulbarga (C.C.No.3667/2012), which is registered for
2
the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Amrutha, whom he had married at a mass marriage on 12-022012 and he had received gold and cash as dowry. But, he wanted more money and therefore, was harassing Amrutha, according to the prosecution and he had demanded cash of Rs.1,00,000/- to enable him to set up a business. Since Amrutha’s parents were incapable of providing such finances, she was frustrated and not able to withstand the constant harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner, she is said to have committed suicide by hanging. It is on the complaint of her father that a case has been registered for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B read
3
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity).
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the case is purely on the basis of the information provided by the complainant who was not an eye-witness to any such alleged harassment or instigation. There were no injuries of the nature contemplated under Section 304-B and there are no other witnesses to establish that there was constant harassment and cruelty meted out to the deceased, in the face of which, the petitioner being detained in custody, is unfair and unjust. The petitioner has been in custody since the past more than six months, whereas the parents of the petitioner have been enlarged on bail. By a parity of reasoning, the learned counsel seeks bail.
From the bare facts narrated, it is evident that the petitioner was married to the deceased less than 10 months from the date of marriage when she died of an unnatural death. That would raise a presumption against the petitioner, which
4
would have to be discharged by him. The prima facie case that is sought to be made out by the prosecution cannot be seriously doubted. Therefore, the parents of the petitioner being enlarged on bail, cannot be a ground for the petitioner to claim parity. In the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for enlargement on bail. The petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted to a husband accused of dowry harassment and诱杀 when the deceased died shortly after a mass marriage.
Whether the custody of parents on bail can serve as a ground for granting bail to the petitioner by parity of reasoning.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ritesh
The State
ANAND BYRAREDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
