Allowed

Sri Kumaraswamy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Jan 2022CRL.P/91/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the criminal petition for bail. The court held that while the victim's death and suicide attempts were linked to dowry harassment, the causality is a matter for trial, making it a fit case for exercising discretion to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was released on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/ and two sureties, along with other standard conditions.

Sri Kumaraswamy Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

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

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.91/2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI KUMARASWAMY, S/O SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.14, JAYANNA LAYOUT, MARUTHI NAGAR, KOGILU ROAD, YALAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560064. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI YASHAVANTH SAJJANAGOUDAR)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU, BENGALURU – 560001. …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R. D., HCGP)

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.301/2021 OF KAMAKSHIPALYA P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 39^th ACMM, BANGALORE.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.301/2021 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶17

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

¶18

The factual matrix of the case is that marriage of the victim was solemnized with the petitioner on 27.01.2020 and thereafter she joined the matrimonial home. During the time of the marriage, dowry was given and subsequent to the marriage, they demanded Rs.3,50,000/- and the said amount was also given through the victim, but harassment was continued stating that she was married only that they would get the assistance for construction of the house and also she was subjected to both physical and mental cruelty. As a result, she was depressed. Once she took tablets to commit suicide and treatment was provided to her and thereafter the husband of the victim only

¶19

¶20

brought her to the parental house to stay for some time and thereafter they did not come and take her and hence she took extreme step of committing suicide. Hence, in the complaint request was made to take action against this petitioner as well as the other accused persons.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶22

other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and this petitioner is in custody from 23.10.2021 and the victim was having the suicide tendency and on 12.09.2021 also after Ganesha festival, she made an attempt to commit suicide by taking sleeping pills and when the same came to the notice of the petitioner he only admitted the victim to the hospital and after recovery, this petitioner left her in her parental house and after 40 days she has committed suicide and hence there is no proximity to the cause of death of the victim in taking extreme step of committing suicide at the instance of the petitioner. The investigation has been completed and for more than three months, the petitioner has been in custody and hence he may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

¶24

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that earlier also the victim made an attempt to commit suicide since this petitioner along with his family members subjected her for both mental and physical cruelty and also demanded additional dowry and additional dowry amount was also given and inspite of it they were not satisfied with the amount and she committed suicide in her parental house.

¶25

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶26

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that an attempt was made earlier to commit suicide by consuming sleeping tablets. It is also not in dispute that this petitioner took the wife/victim to hospital and provided treatment and no doubt there is a death note also that this petitioner is responsible for her death along with the family members i.e., in-laws, sister-in-law and brothers. The other accused have been enlarged on bail. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that prior to death also she gave statement wherein she has stated that on account of the

¶27

¶28

death of her grandmother, forcibly she left the matrimonial home by taking the consent of the family members. Taking all these matters into consideration, whether she was subjected to dowry harassment and cruelty is a matter of trial. Hence, it is a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶29

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶30

following:

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.301/2021 of Kamakshipalya Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(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.

¶34

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

¶35

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all the future hearing

¶36

¶37

dates, unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.

¶38

(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.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sri Kumaraswamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kumaraswamy 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

Sri Uday Periyaswamy Bhaskar Vs State by Rajajinagar Police

Nayaz Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Nagesh K E Vs State by Arasikere Police Station

Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Venugopalaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkatapathi Vs State of Karnataka