Criminal petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail in a case alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC regarding domestic dispute and suicide of wife. Court rejected bail application.
Petition to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed; petitioner directed to surrender for regular bail.
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 AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1901/2021
BETWEEN:
Sri. Subbegowda S/o. Venkateshappa, Aged about 36 years, R/o. Dommasandra Village, Tayalur Hobli, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar – 563131.
..Petitioner
(By Sri. M.R. Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka, By Vemgal Police Station, Kolar District, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Dr.Ambedkar Veedi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
..Respondent
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2
This Criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.285/2020 of Vemagal Police Station, Kolar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Orders , this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting him bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 285/2020 registered by Vemagal police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of IPC.
Padmamma, mother of the deceased filed a complaint
3
before the Vemagal Police on 12.12.2020 alleging that marriage of her daughter Nandini was performed with the accused No.1/petitioner herein in the year 2017 and daughter was residing in the house of the petitioner/accused No.1. The petitioner/accused No.1 used to quarrel for small issues and about one year back the petitioner/accused No.1 brought his brother Manjunath and his sister in law Savitha i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 to his rented house. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 said to be quarrelling with the deceased and both of them also harassing the deceased and demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of the deceased and about prior to 25.11.2020 petitioner/accused No.1 himself telephoned to the complainant and told her daughter has left the house as he himself thrown her out by snatching the mangalasutra and thereafter he again telephoned the complainant and told that her daughter came back. Subsequently, panchayath was
4
held and petitioner/accused No.1 was advised to look after the deceased properly. Subsequently, on the date of incident i.e., on 12.12.2020 at about 01.38 pm to 01.40 p.m., the accused/petitioner said to have telephoned by the deceased and thereafter the deceased committed suicide in the house of the complainant. Therefore, the complaint came to be registered to arrest the petitioners. After registration of the case, the police made hectic efforts to trace the petitioner. Hence, the petitioners approached the Sessions Judge for bail which was partly allowed. The learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused Nos.2 and 3 and rejected the bail petition of this petitioner/accused No1. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5
and the deceased in respect of silly and small matters, thereafter the accused had thrown out the deceased by snatching her mangalasutra and she was not found for four to five days, thereafter she came back and subsequently panchayath was held and the petitioner/accused was advised to look after the deceased properly and accused said to be told the he will be taking back the deceased after some time and he left the house of the complainant. The investigation is still under progress of course main allegation is that the petitioner who is the husband of the deceased telephoned the complainant and said that the deceased left the house as he quarreled and snatched the mangalasutra and thereafter he has telephoned to the deceased and just tried to inform about the commission of suicide by the deceased. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no abetment by the petitioner but the investigation is still
6
under progress. The witnesses are yet to be examined by the Investigation Officer.
circumstances of the case, the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.285/2020 of Vemagal Police Station is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. Therefore, petition is dismissed .
The petitioner is directed to surrender before the jurisdictional Police and seek regular bail.
Sd/JUDGE
mbb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the pending criminal offence of abetment to suicide and cruelty by a husband.
Whether the pendency of investigation and joint bail denial to co-accused bars the grant of anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subbegowda
State of Karnataka
K. Natarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
