Allowed

Paramesh @ Pujari Parameshi @ Parameshi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Nov 2018CRL.P/101445/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka granted bail to petitioner accused in dowry harassment and dowry death case. Court imposed personal bond, attendance conditions, and prohibition on tampering with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted: Petitioner ordered released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/-, monthly police attendance, and non-interference with prosecution.

Paramesh @ Pujari Parameshi @ Parameshi Vs the State of… — Money Laundering | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

¶6

CRL.P.NO.101445 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PARAMESH @ PUJARI PARAMESHI @ PARAMESHI S/O: LATE PUJARI PAKKIRAPPA, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PROPRIETOR OF SWATHI BAKERY, W.NO.24, OPP. KUSUMA CHOWK, COWAL BAZAR, MAIN ROAD, BALLARI R/O: NEAR NEELAKANTESHWARA TEMPLE, HAMPENAGAR, SANTEPET, KARUR VILLAGE, TQ. SIRAGUPPA, DIST.BALLARI. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH S.HATTIKATAGI, ADV. FOR SRI. S.S. YADRAMI, ADV.)

¶9

AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BALLARI WOMEN POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH. ... RESPONDENT

¶10

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER AND ORDER TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER

¶12

: 2 :

¶13

ON BAIL IN C.C.NO.383/2018 (BALLARI WOMEN PS.CR.NO.10/2018) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.498-A, 302, 201, 304-B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, BALLARI.

¶14

This petition coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The deceased in the case is one Susheela. Accused is Paramesh @ Pujari Parameshi @ Parameshi-her husband. The criminal case is registered against him in Crime No.10/2018 dated 15/1/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 201, 304B, r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶17

The marriage of the petitioner with Susheela was performed on 3/5/2015 at Karur. The marital house of Susheela constituted her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Accused No.1 had received dowry in the form of gold from the parents of Susheela and also demanding additional dowry of Rs.50,000/- that was not paid. A Panchayat was also held. It is stated that on 15/1/2018, Susheela was strangulated and neck was pressed by the petitioner to ensure that he murdered her

¶18

: 3 :

¶19

or he murdered his wife by strangulating her. It is also stated on the earlier occasion also accused No.1 was harassing the victim and also tried to kill her. Susheela was admitted to out patient department and at that time accused No.1 ran away from the place. It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 in furtherance of common intention between them, caused dowry harassment, torture and strangulated her to take away her life. It is in this connection, the criminal case is registered. Accused No.2Gurulingamma is the mother of the petitioner. She is said to have been released on anticipatory bail.

¶20

Learned counsel Sri. Rakseh S.Hattikatagi, would submit that the petitioner is innocent and that accused No.2 is already enlarged on bail. Further, they have not committed any act causing injuries to the life and welfare of Susheela. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the child of the petitioner, who is aged about two years is being maintained by the family of his relative.

¶21

: 4 :

¶22

The learned HCGP would oppose the

¶23

application and submit that Susheela was not a lady of taking to level of committing suicide. It is also to be stated that demand for dowry was also there besides the dowry already received. However, the fact that she is in custody since 16/1/2018 and investigation is completed. There are no allegations of interference of the investigation and that the final report is already filed.

¶24

In the overall context and circumstances, I find that no prejudice will be caused to the ends of justice, if the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail. The apprehension of the prosecution could be resolved by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petition filed by the petitioner-accused u/S 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. He shall be released on bail in connection with Crime.No.10/2018 on the file of Bellary City sub-Division, Bellary Women Police Station (c.C.No.383/2018) pending on the file of IV Addl. Civil

¶27

: 5 :

¶28

Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Ballari, subject to the following conditions:-

¶29

i) He shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with a likesum surety to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶30

ii) He shall mark his attendance before the Police on first Sunday of every month till examination of the complainant and two witnesses by the trial Court;

¶31

iii) He shall not tamper or hamper the case of the prosecution;

¶32

iv) He shall appear before the Court on all the hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for valid reasons.

¶33

Violation of the conditions would result in cancellation

¶34

of the bail automatically.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Vmb

Paramesh @ Pujari Parameshi @ Parameshi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramesh @ Pujari Parameshi @ Parameshi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Sameer S/O. Hussainbasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath @ Kadamanja S/O Shyamanna Nayak @Bhavani Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Vijayendra S/O Prahladacharya Panchamukhi Vs Smt. Renuka W/O Vijayendar Panchamukhi

Daulath S/O Husain Sab Agasibagelu Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivayogeppa S/O. Basavanneppa Bilagi Vs the Cardmom Merchants Co. Operative Bank Ltd.

Punit S/O Bhimasing Rajaput Vs State of Karnataka