Dismissed

Boregowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2022CRL.P/2840/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected the bail petition filed by an accused in a dowry death case (IPC 304-B). The court held that exercise of discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is not fit unless the FSL report regarding the alleged authentic death note is awaited.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition rejected; liberty granted to approach court after receipt of FSL report on death note.

Boregowda Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2840 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

BOREGOWDA S/O LATE KULLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT BALLENAHALLI VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571435.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.A.N.RADHA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IJOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. TO ENLARGE THE PETITONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.7/2022 OF IJOOR P.S., RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304-B OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM, RAMANAGARA.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.2 in Crime No.7/2022 of Ijoor Police Station, Ramanagara Town for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

¶20

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

¶21

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

¶22

that marriage of the victim was solemnized with accused No.1 on 24.05.2021 and in the complaint, an allegation is made against this petitioner as well as her husband subjected her for dowry harassment for demanding an amount of Rs.6,00,000/and the said fact was brought to the notice of CW-2-mother of the victim. Hence, C.Ws.2 to 6 and 11 have advised this petitioner and other accused persons not to give harassment. Inspite of the advise, this petitioner along with other accused persons continued to give harassment to the victim and hence, she took extreme step of committing suicide on 25.01.2022 by hanging herself in her parental house and she was a pregnant by that time. Hence, the police have registered the case and

¶23

¶24

investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet for the offence invoking under Section 304-B of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Learned counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court the statement of the mother as well as the alleged witnesses who have participated in the panchayath having advised the husband of the victim and learned counsel vehemently contended that the advise was made to the husband and not to the in-laws. Hence, no need of custodial trial and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would submit that within hardly seven months, the victim took extreme step of committing suicide and also before committing suicide, she left the death note wherein she has made a specific allegation against this petitioner that he misbehaved with the victim and also she was able to manage to bring her husband to her parental house and the witnesses who have given the statement before the investigating officer were not aware of the fact and even, she has not disclosed the said fact to her parents but in the death

¶27

¶28

note, she has mentioned the very conduct of this petitioner with her childhood friend and the Court has to take note of the contents of death note.

¶29

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the police have already investigated the matter and the charge sheet has been filed. The marriage of the victim was solemnized with accused No.1 on 24.05.2021 and the death was occurred within a span of seven months of her marriage and having taken note of the contents of death note which has been placed before this Court by the learned HCGP, he submits that the same is sent to the FSL with regard to her hand writing and the complaint also discloses that the victim is a B.E. graduate in Electronic and Telecommunication and also taking note of the contents of the death note, the kannada is written in english, wherein a specific allegation is made against this petitioner about his conduct and subjected her to sexual harassment and before committing suicide, she left the death note and hence, the Court has to take note of the contents of the death note and unless, the FSL report is not received with regard to death note is concerned, it is not a fit case to exercise the power of discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

¶31

7. In view of the above discussion, the bail petition is

¶32

rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the

¶33

Court after receipt of FSL report in respect of the death note.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

JS/-

Boregowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boregowda v. 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

Prajwal @ Gunda Vs State of Karnataka

Anandkumar S C Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraja K.S. @ Naga Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Prashanth Pandey Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jayaramaiah B M Vs State of Karnataka

Shakthi @ Sakthimurthy Vs the State of Karnataka