Allowed

Dayananda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/5604/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for regular bail filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that since the investigation was completed and the charge-sheet filed, the matter of harassment is fit for trial and continued custody was not required. Bail was granted subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail executing a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the same sum.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5604/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DAYANANDA, S/O LATE SHIVARAMAIAH, HINDU, AGED 37 YEARS, R/OF CHIKKAHALLI, NAVAGRAMA VILLAGE, HIREHALLI POST, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT, TUMAKURU – 572104. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI T.C. SATHISHKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION , TUMAKURU – 572101. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560001. ...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRL.MISC.NO.821/2022 (CR.NO.19/2022) OF TUMAKURU WOMEN P.S., TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 304-B READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU.

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.821/2022 (Crime No.19/2022) of Tumakuru Women Police Station, Tumakuru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶19

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner’s marriage was solemnized with the victim in 2017 and in the said wedlock, the victim gave birth to two children. The allegation against the petitioner and the motherin-law is that they were insisting the victim to get the site as agreed at the time of the marriage and subjected her for both mental and physical harassment and hence she took the extreme step of committing suicide by hanging herself on

¶21

¶22

13.02.2022. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and invoked the offence under Sections 304B, 498A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution mainly contend that the marriage was solemnized in 2017 and hence the question of insisting to get site in 2022 does not arise. The learned counsel submits that the prosecution relies upon the statement of panchayatdars and the same has to be tested in trial and investigation has already been completed and charge-sheet is also filed. The learned counsel submits that this petitioner is in custody from 13.02.2022 and hence no need of further custodial trial and he may be enlarged on bail.

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the marriage was solemnized in 2017 and the victim was subjected to harassment by this petitioner and mother-in-law i.e., accused No.2. It is also the case of the prosecution that an amount of Rs.6 lakhs was spent at the time of marriage and they were

¶25

¶26

harassing her continuously both physically and mentally and hence 4-5 months back, took C.W.4 to the house of the accused and gave Rs.1 lakh and expressed that they are unable to provide any site and requested to look after her well. Insptie of it, they continued the harassment and hence she took the extreme step of committing suicide.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶28

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material available on record, the marriage was solemnized in 2017 and the death was taken place in 2022 and allegation is that they were insisting to get the site. The investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is also filed and whether the petitioner has subjected her for harassment both mentally and physically along with accused No.2, is a matter of trial and no need of further custodial trial. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the medical documents, which is just prior to taking of extreme step of committing suicide in the month of December and the victim was taken to the hospital and

¶29

¶30

she was not getting sleep and those documents can be relied upon before the Trial Court for defence.

¶31

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crl.Misc.No.821/2022 (Crime No.19/2022) of Tumakuru Women Police Station, Tumakuru District, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶35

(i) The petitioner shall execute his personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶36

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶38

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Dayananda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayananda 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

Manjunatha Vs the State

Sri. Reddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Somachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena Vs the State of Karnataka

Anthony Raj. B, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Anjaneppa Vs the State through the Inspector of Police