Allowed

Prashantha. S. N. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2022CRL.P/5737/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. concerning offences under Sections 304B and 498A IPC, the High Court enlarged the petitioner on bail. The court found that while suicide followed a divorce notice, messages exchanged did not show specific allegations of harassment by the petitioner before she committed suicide.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties, non-tampering of witnesses, appearance instructions, and jurisdiction restriction.

Prashantha. S. N. Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5737/2022

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

PRASHANTHA. S. N S/O NAGENDRA BABU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. 1/8, 1^ST FLOOR 9^TH CROSS, HANUMAGIRINAGAR VTC, CHIKKALASANDRA POST SUBRAMNYAPURA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KARNATAKA-560 061

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NANDINI LAYOUT P.S. BANGALORE DISTRICT-5 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-560 001

¶12

… RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.87/2022 OF NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION,

¶14

¶15

MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 304B, 498A OF IPC AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.87/2022 of Nandini Layout Police Station, Malleshwaram Sub-Division, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A of IPC.

¶19

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

¶20

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the mother of the victim had lodged a complaint stating that her daughter’s marriage was solemnized with this petitioner. In the said wedlock, she gave birth to a female child and spent an

¶21

¶22

amount of Rs.70,000/-. The victim’s husband/this petitioner has not given any money and also the family members of this petitioner have not given any expenses. Even after the discharge also, no body came to see her daughter and insisted her for grand naming ceremony in the month of February 2022. When they could not arrange for naming ceremony and insisted to give gold ornaments and make the grand arrangement for naming ceremony. In the meanwhile, they have sent divorce notice in the month of March 2022, as a result, on 26.04.2022, her daughter has committed suicide by leaving her child. Hence, a case has been registered invoking the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of IPC.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that this Court already granted bail in favour of the mother-in-law of the victim in Crl.P.No.5579/2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the messages which have been conversant between the victim as well as the petitioner and in that message, she says that not to do the same to anybody and spoiled her life and this

¶24

¶25

petitioner also given the reply stating that God knows what he had gone through and she has also stated that she want to say one thing that her mother-in-law will always in her heart and thereafter expressed good things about her mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the complaint and the complaint is given by the mother of the victim. Hence, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that in the complaint, a specific allegation is made that they only spent the money for the marriage as well as at the time of delivery and after the victim gave birth to a child, they did not come to see the victim and also see the face of the child, inspite of that the victim received the divorce notice from the petitioner. Hence, she was frustrated and took the extreme step of committing suicide. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for bail.

¶27

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the

¶28

¶29

complaint, wherein, the mother of the victim girl had alleged against this petitioner and also her mother-in-law that they have not met the expenses of the marriage and after the birth of a child, some messages were exchanged between the victim as well as this petitioner wherein the victim has not made any specific allegation but both of them talked about the naming ceremony of the child and also issuance of legal notice and after the chat in the mobile with this petitioner, the victim took the extreme step to commit the suicide. Having taken note of the accusations made in the complaint as well as the messages which have been exchanged between the petitioner and the victim, which has been transcribed and produced before the Court, there is no specific allegation of subjecting the victim for mental and physical harassment by this petitioner but she took the extreme step of committing suicide only after the receipt of the divorce notice from the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that the message sent by the victim after she had been to the residence of her parents in the month of February onwards till committing suicide and not expressed a word against this petitioner instead

¶30

¶31

she messaged that her mother-in-law will always in her heart and also she will remember her father-in-law and sister-in-law. Having taken note of these messages sent by the victim herself, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶32

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶33

following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the

¶36

petitioner/accused No.1 shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.87/2022 of Nandini Layout Police Station, Malleshwaram Sub-Division, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

(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.

¶38

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(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.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Prashantha. S. N. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashantha. S. N. 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

Anukumar J v Vs State of Karnataka

V. Vishnu Devan @ Vishnu @ Pochi Vs State of Karnataka by SHO

Mr. Ramashetty Pavan Kumar @ Pavan @ Pruthvi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadeesh Vs State of Karnataka

Kasappa @ Kashiray S/O Satyappa Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagarjuna G S Vs the State of Karnataka