Dismissed

Mr Anthony Roob v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2022CRL.P/8819/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The accused challenged his detention in a dowry death case involving suicide by wife within two years of marriage. The Court noted material evidence of ill-treatment and dowry demands, finding no merit in the bail plea.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail dismissed; petitioner remains in judicial custody.

Mr Anthony Roob Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8819/2022

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR.ANTHONY ROOB AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS S/O LATE MR.MICHEAL A RESIDING AT NO.41/1, 2^ND CROSS AROKYAPPA LAYOUT KAMMANAHALLI BANASWADI BENGALURU – 560 084

¶7

….PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI.VINAY KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATION HOUSE OFFICER BANASWADI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶13

¶14

*****

¶15

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 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 CR.NO.128/2022 OF BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A, 304-B OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN S.C.NO.1446/2022 AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner – accused No.1 has filed this petition

¶19

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for enlarging him on bail in respect of Banaswadi Police Station Crime No.128/2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A,

¶20

304B of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short ‘DP Act’).

¶21

The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that

¶22

the law is set in motion by the complaint lodged by the mother

¶23

of the deceased – Sowmyapriya. It is the case of the prosecution that Sowmyapriya was married to the petitioner –

¶24

¶25

accused No.1 on 31.10.2020 at Chikkaballapura as per the Christian custom and at the time of marriage, sufficient dowry was paid in the form of cash and gold and Rs.10,00,000/- was spent towards the marriage expenses. It is also alleged that after the marriage of three months, the deceased and accused No.1 were residing together amicably and happily and later on, the accused and mother-in-law started to harass the deceased to get additional dowry and they used to physically and mentally torture her and abused her in filthy language. It is also alleged that on 25.03.2022 at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased was assaulted by the present petitioner and she suffered bleeding injuries and was admitted to the hospital and this fact was communicated to the complainant by brother-in-law of the deceased and she was discharged on 10.30 p.m. on the same day. It is also alleged that when the complainant contacted her daughter, she informed her that she is going to take a call on that night either to continue marital life with accused No.1 or otherwise and meanwhile on

¶26

¶27

26.03.2022 at 6.00 a.m., she found that there was a miscall

¶28

from her daughter at 4.30 a.m. and later on, she received the information that deceased has committed the suicide.

¶29

On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has registered the crime and the petitioner was arrested and was remanded to the judicial custody. After completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer has also submitted charge sheet under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. The petitioner has moved a regular bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has rejected the bail petition filed by the present petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent – State. Perused the records.

¶31

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

¶33

there was no demand during the marriage and whatever alleged to have been paid was voluntarily paid. He would also contend that certain material documents were not produced by the prosecution and the deceased used to threaten the petitioner regularly of committing suicide in order to blackmail him. He would also assert that since the investigation is concluded and charge sheet has been laid down, the presence of the petitioner is no more required. At this juncture, there is no prima-facie materials regarding demand for dowry. Hence, he would seek for admitting the petitioner on bail.

¶34

Per contra , the learned HCGP would seriously oppose

¶35

the bail petition denying the allegations and assertions made there under.

¶36

Having heard the arguments and perusing the

¶37

records, it is evident from the records that the marriage of the deceased was performed on 31.10.2020 with the petitioner in

¶38

¶39

Chikkaballapura. She has committed suicide on the early morning on 26.03.2022. The death was within two years of the marriage. Further, it is also evident that it is an unnatural death. The prima-facie allegations made in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses does establish that all along, there was a demand for additional dowry and the accounts were also being sought regarding her salary income. Further, there were allegations regarding insisting the deceased to get

¶40

a house in Bengaluru. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner himself was possessing a house in Bengaluru and as such, there was no occasion of demanding a house in Bengaluru. The said argument cannot be accepted considering the material evidence on record. The

¶41

evidence also discloses that there was consistent demand for dowry and one day prior to the incident, the deceased was assaulted by the present petitioner and she was admitted in the hospital. Hence, prima-facie , there is material evidence to show that prior to her death, the deceased was subjected to

¶42

¶43

ill-treatment and admittedly, the death has occurred within two years of the marriage. Considering these aspects, primafacie, there is a material evidence to incorporate the provisions under Sections 304B of IPC.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance of the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.7229/2021 and Criminal Petition No.2885/2020. The facts and circumstances of the said cases and the present case are entirely different. In the instant case, there is a material evidence as against the present petitioner.

¶45

The learned counsel would invite the attention of the Court that charge sheet has been laid down and the presence of the petitioner is no more required by the Investigating Agency. Merely because the charge sheet has been laid down, it is not

¶46

a ground to admit the petitioner on bail. Considering the material evidence placed and the conduct of the petitioner, this is not a fit case, wherein the discretion can be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The principles enunciated in the

¶47

¶48

above cited decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Considering these facts and circumstances of the case, this petition being devoid of merits does not survive for consideration.

¶49

Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed .

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

NBM

Mr Anthony Roob v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Anthony Roob 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rafiq Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Anthoni Joseph Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Prakash Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri M N Harish M.Com.Llb Vs State of Karnataka

Revannegowda U T Vs the State of Karnataka