Dismissed

Smt.Renuka W/O Nilakantappa Kale Alias Chalawadi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2021CRL.P/100524/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in a dowry death case where the deceased died mysteriously after marriage within five months. Court examined allegations of husband and in-laws ill-treating deceased demanding dowry resulting in hanging. Bench denied bail due to strong prima facie case and fear of affecting witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Petitioners not entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Smt.Renuka W/O Nilakantappa Kale Alias Chalawadi Vs the… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100524/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT RENUKA W/O.NILAKANTAPPA KALE @ CHALAWADI, AGE-54 YEARS, OCC-SERVICE, R/O.SHIRAGUPPI VILLAGE, TQ-HUBBALLI, DIST-DHARWAD-580 023.

¶8

MAHANTESH

¶9

S/O.NILAKANTAPPA KALE @ CHALAWADI, AGE-24 YEARS, OCC-DRIVER, R/O.SHIRAGUPPI VILLAGE, TQ-HUBBALLI, DIST-DHARWAD-580 023.

¶10

…….. PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI: S.B.DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.SUMANGALA A.CHAKALABBI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (BY HUBBALLI RURAL POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI) REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580 011.

¶14

…… RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI: RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 3 ON REGULAR BAIL FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 306, 304B AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AND THE SAME IS REGISTERED AS CRIMINAL CASE NO.173/2021 (HUBBALLI RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.214/2020) PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL J.M.F.C. COURT, HUBBALLI ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT AND JUST, IN THE ABOVE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING :

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 3 are before this Court seeking grant of bail in Crime No.214/2020 registered by Hubballi Rural Police against accused Nos.1 to 5 initially for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304(B) and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ for the sake of brevity) on the basis of first information lodged by the informant-Mallesh Talakal.

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant

¶22

lodged the first information against the accused stating that deceased-Netravati is his daughter. She had studied B.E. during 2016 and was working in a Private Company at

¶23

¶24

Hosapete. During February-2020, she purchased Honda Activa motorcycle No.KA-35/4876 and she has saved about two and half lakhs from her income. Suddenly during 2020, she left the house of the complainant and the informant came to know that his daughter married accused No.2 during June-2020. The informant stated that as his daughter had married against his will and without informing him, he had not attended the marriage. However, the deceased had called her mother two or three times and had informed that her husband, in-laws, brother-in-law and sister-in-laws were ill-treating her both physically and mentally by demanding dowry. Since, the deceased had married the accused against the will of her parents’, they had not responded to it. But she had requested her mother over phone to save her life. On 07.11.2020 at about 9.00 a.m., the informant received information that his daughter-Netravati died in her matrimonial house. Immediately, the informant along with his wife and others went to the house of accused and found the dead body of the deceased in the varanda. He noticed black scar marks on her neck.

¶25

¶26

He came to know that accused Nos.1 to 5 being the husband and his relatives were ill-treating the deceased both physically and mentally by demanding dowry as she has not brought the dowry. The accused have strangulated her neck and caused her death. He also came to know through neighbors of the accused that there was frequent quarrel between the deceased and the accused with regard to nonbringing of dowry. Therefore, he suspected that accused Nos.1 to 5 are responsible for causing the death of deceased. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the accused. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation.

¶27

On 08.11.2020, the informant gave his further statement with the police that he came to know subsequently that the deceased had hanged herself in the house of accused as she could not tolerate the ill-treatment by the accused and the accused have abetted the commission of offence. On the basis of first information, the FIR was registered against the accused and investigation is undertaken. It is stated that now the charge sheet is also filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B read

¶28

¶29

with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the D.P.Act’ for the sake of brevity).

¶30

Heard Sri S.B.Doddagouda, learned counsel for Smt.Sumangala A.Chakalabbi learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ramesh Chigari the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 3. They are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceasedNetravati. They have not committed any offences as alleged. They are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Accused No.4 is already enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court. There was no prior complaint regarding demand for dowry and ill-treatment by the accused. It was a love marriage and it was against the wishes of the complainant. Therefore, a false complaint came to be lodged. As per the postmortem report, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. There are no specific allegations made against the present petitioners. Accused No.1 is a lady, who is aged 54

¶32

¶33

years, she suffering from joint pain and thyroid problem. Accused No.3 is also suffering from chest problem. Investigation is already completed. Under such circumstances, these petitioners may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions. Hence, he prayed for allowing the petition.

¶34

7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the present petitioners for having committed the offence. After thorough investigation, the charge sheet is filed for the above said offences. The deceased has married accused No.2 during January 2020. Within five months from the date of marriage, the deceased died unnatural death in the house of accused. There are specific allegations made against the present petitioners who are mother-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased. CWs.11-13 are the neighbors who have given their statement before the police regarding demand for dowry, ill-treatment given by the accused and even about the quarrel that had taken place soon before the death of deceased. All these materials on record make strong prima facie case against the accused. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

¶36

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arises for my consideration is:

¶37

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶38

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’ for the following:

¶39

REASONS

¶40

It is the contention of the prosecution that the deceased married accused No.2 during January 2020 and it was a love marriage. The complainant is the father of deceased and had not given consent for the marriage. It is sated that immediately after the marriage, the deceased had called her mother two or three times and had complained about the ill-treatment meted to her by the accused. It is stated that on 7/1/2020, she was found hanging in the house of accused and as per the postmortem report, the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. As per the charge sheet, CWs.11 to 13 are the neighbors of the accused and they have given statement regarding ill-treatment meted to

¶41

¶42

the deceased by the accused and also about the demand for dowry. All these materials constitute strong prima facie evidence at this stage. Therefore, it cannot be said that they are falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. Since CWs.11 to 13 are the neighbors of accused, the release of petitioners on bail will adversely affect the case of prosecution. Mere release of the accused on bail will deter the prosecution witnesses to depose before the Court in support of the case of prosecution. Considering the seriousness of the offence that the deceased died unnatural death in the house of accused within five months of her marriage, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶43

Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

CKK

Smt.Renuka W/O Nilakantappa Kale Alias Chalawadi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Renuka W/O Nilakantappa Kale Alias Chalawadi 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

Manju S/O Yallappa Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr.Vianayaka Prasanna S/O Late Surya Naayana Vs the State

K. Narayana Reddy S/O K Hanumantha Reddy Vs the State by Police Inspector

Shree Sainath Traders, Vs the State of Karnataka

Lokesha P Alias Lokesha Naik Alias Poojari Lakshmi Naik S/O Pathya Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

R. Pakeerappa S/O R. Ramappa Vs the State of Karnataka