Dismissed

Manu G C v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023CRL.P/8004/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka directed in this criminal petition filed under S.439 Cr.P.C for regular bail in a case involving murder and dowry, that the petitioner is not a fit case for bail considering the heinous nature of the offence, confession by the accused, and sufficient material connecting him to the crime.

What did the court decide?

Petition for bail dismissed. Accused is not enlarged on bail.

Manu G C Vs the State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8004 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MANU G.C AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS S/O CHANDRAPPA R/O GANGAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, R/O CHANNAGIRI TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI LAXMIKANT M DUGE, ADV.) AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI MS Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 213 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.44/2023 (CR.NO.465/2022) REGISTERED BY CHANNAGIRI POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 323, 114, 120B, 302, 304B, 201, 34 AND 314 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Accused No.1 in S.C.No.44/2023 pending before the Court of II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Davanagere arising out of Crime No.465/2022 registered by the Channagiri Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 114, 120B, 302, 304B, 201, 314 R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is before this Court seeking regular bail.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶23

The first informant Smt. Meghana W/o Deelip had approached Channagiri Police Station, Davanagere on 21.11.2022 and submitted a written complaint, based on which, FIR in Crime No.465/2022 was registered by Channagiri Police Station against petitioner and 3 others initially for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201 R/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶24

As per informant, the marriage of her younger sister Rashmi with the petitioner was solemnized on 13.04.2022 and initially for a period of one month fifteen days, the couple were living happily. Thereafter, the petitioner and

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶27

his family members were ill-treating and harassing Rashmi on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry from her house. Subsequently, Rashmi got pregnant and even thereafter accused persons had continued to ill-treat and harass her both physically and mentally and she was not being taken to medical examination when she was pregnant. Therefore, the complainant and her husband had gone to matrimonial house of Rashmi and requested accused persons to take care of Rashmi.

¶28

On 10.10.2022, the complainant was allegedly

¶29

informed that her sister Rashmi was found missing from the house since midnight of 09.10.2022 and on enquiry she was informed by accused persons that missing complaint has been lodged. Thereafter, on the basis of complaint made by the informant's father a criminal case was registered against accused persons for ill-treating Rashmi in furtherance of their demand for dowry. Informant suspected that accused persons had committed murder of Rashmi and had disposed of her dead body. In this background, she had approached the police on 21.11.2022 and submitted information, based on which FIR in Crime No.465/2022 was registered by Channagiri Police

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶32

Station. The petitioner who was arrayed as accused no.1 in Crime No.465/2022 was arrested on 21.11.2022. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been filed against four persons and the petitioner is arrayed as accused no.1 in the charge sheet.

¶33

The bail application filed by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Sessions Court in Crl.Misc.No.487/2023 was rejected on 29.05.2023. It is under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this court.

¶34

Learner Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from midnight of 09.10.2022, Rashmi was found missing and therefore, the petitioner had lodged a missing complaint which had resulted in registering FIR in Crime No.415/2022 by Channagiri Police Station. He also submits that subsequently on 27.10.2022 father of Rashmi had lodged a complaint before Davanagere Rural Police Station against accused persons alleging about demand of dowry and also illtreatment given by accused persons to Rashmi, based on which FIR in Crime No.335/2022 was registered by Davanagere Rural Police Station. In the said case, all accused persons were

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶37

enlarged on anticipatory bail on 19.11.2022. Thereafter, on 21.11.2022 sister of Rashmi had approached police informing that she suspected that accused persons had murdered her sister Rashmi and had disposed of her dead body. On the very same day, the dead body of Rashmi was recovered.

¶38

The sequence of events raises a doubt with regard to correctness of allegation made in the FIR. There is no material to show that accused persons were ill-treating deceased Rashmi and only after she was found missing, Crime No.335/2022 was registered by her father. He submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Investigation in the case is complete and charge sheet has been field. Accused nos.2 to 4 have been granted bail by the Sessions Court and accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶39

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent - State has seriously opposed the bail application. He submits that the petitioner has committed a heinous crime of committing the murder of his wife who was pregnant and thereafter buried the dead body in a pit which was already dug by him and kept ready in a forest area.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶42

He submits that whats app messages exchanged by the deceased and informant would go to show that the deceased was being ill-treated and harassed by the petitioner and his family members. The petitioner has murdered his wife who was 6 months pregnant. Therefore, considering the nature of allegation against him, he is not entitled for bail. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶43

The material on record would go to show that the marriage of the petitioner with deceased was solemnized on 13.04.2022. As per complaint averments, only for a period of about 45 days after marriage, the couple had lived happily. Thereafter, accused persons started harassing and ill-treating Rashmi on the ground that she had not brought sufficient dowry from her parents house.

¶44

The whats app messages exchanged between the informant and the deceased would reflect that the deceased was being ill-treated in her matrimonial house by her husband and in-laws and this was informed by deceased to her elder sister who is first informant in this case.

¶45

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶46

Undisputedly, the petitioner has filed missing complaint alleging that his wife Rashmi was found missing from midnight of 09.10.2022, based on which FIR in Crime No.415/2022 was registered by Channagiri Police Station which clearly indicates that deceased Rashmi's last presence was in the house of the petitioner herein.

¶47

Based on the first information of the elder sister of Rashmi, FIR in Crime No.465/2022 was registered and the petitioner was arrested and during interrogation he had confessed to the crime and had stated that he had committed murder of his wife and after committing the murder he had buried her dead body in a pit which he had dug in the forest area. Based on such confession made by the petitioner, the dead body was recovered from the spot where it was buried by the petitioner and other accused persons.

¶48

As per charge sheet allegation, the petitioner had strangulated the neck of the deceaed with his hands. The postmortem report would reflect that the thyroid and hyoid cartilages of Rashmi were broken.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶51

As per charge sheet allegation as a result of force used by the petitioner while strangulating the neck of deceased Rashmi with his hands, the fetus had come out from her private part. After the petitioner had committed the murder of his wife, the dead body was shifted by the petitioner and other accused persons and was buried in the pit which was kept ready in the forest area by the petitioner.

¶52

The charge sheet material would go to show that there is sufficient materials to connect the petitioner to the crime. In addition to the same, the whats app messages exchanged between the deceased and the complainant would go to show that the deceased was being ill-treated in her matrimonial house by the petitioner and her in-laws in furtherance of demand made by them for payment of dowry. The death has taken place within a period of one year from the date of marriage and therefore there is a presumption against the accused persons.

¶53

Considering the manner in which the petitioner has committed the murder of his wife who was pregnant and the offences alleged against the accused being exclusively

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:39626 CRL.P No. 8004 of 2023

¶56

punishable with life imprisonment or death, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶57

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

NMS

Manu G C v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manu G C v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Madhuri. E Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Mohammed Muzammil

Arfath Sharif (A-2) Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Ashok. M. N. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Pavan Prakyath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Praveen K Vs State of Karnataka