Dismissed

Sri Lakshmipathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2024CRL.P/716/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by accused No.1 in a case involving death of his 16-year-old wife after alleged harassment, sexual abuse and assault with an iron rod, registered under IPC, POCSO Act and Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act. The High Court found serious prima facie materials and criminal antecedents and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Lakshmipathi Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:24300 CRL.P No. 716 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 716 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. LAKSHMIPATHI, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O AWALAIAHANAPALYA VILLAGE, HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 563 125.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KORATAGERE POLICE STATION, Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L TUMKUR DISTRICT, Location: High REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Court of Karnataka HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01.

¶12

H. NAGARATHNAMMA, W/O RANGASWAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, GOVT. OFFICIAL NON-GAZETTED, SUPERVISOR, CDPO OFFICE, KORATAGERE TOWN, TUMAKURU - 563 125, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:24300 CRL.P No. 716 of 2024

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.25/2022 (CR.NO.239/2021) OF KORATAGERE P.S., TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 376(2)(i)(n), 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.6 OF POCSO ACT AND SEC.9, 10, 11 OF PROHIBITION OF CHILD MARRIAGE (KARNATAKA AMENDMENT) ACT ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTSC-1) AT TUMAKURU.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.239/2021 of Koratagere Police Station, pending in Spl.C.No.25/2022 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTSC-1) at Tumakuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376(2)(i)(n), 489A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 6 of the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act (for short 'POCSO Act'), 2012 and under Sections 9, 10, 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 2016 on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Smt. H.Nagarathanamma.

¶19

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:24300 CRL.P No. 716 of 2024

¶20

Heard Sri. Subhash Chandra Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the

¶21

materials on record.

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶23

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for

¶24

grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶25

My answer to the above point is in ‘negative’ for the following:

¶26

R E A S O N S

¶27

The petitioner-accused No.1 is seeking grant of bail.

¶28

He was apprehended on 07.11.2021 and since then he is in judicial custody.

¶29

The CDPO has filed the first information against the accused for the offences as stated above. The deceased was aged 16 years and she was married to the petitioner/accused No.1. It is stated that she was subjected to harassment in the matrimonial home. She was sexually abused by the petitioner.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:24300 CRL.P No. 716 of 2024

¶31

Later, the petitioner kicked on her stomach and assaulted her, which resulted in the injuries. It is stated that she has been assaulted with iron rod by the petitioner. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are his family members. It is not in dispute that the deceased was hanged in the house of the petitioner. The post-mortem report discloses that she has sustained four external injuries. As per the medical opinion, she died due to suffocation, as a result of strangulation and the abdominal injuries sustained.

¶32

Even though there are no eye witnesses to the incident, there are prima-facie materials against the petitioner. Admittedly, the incident has taken place in the house of the petitioner. The iron rod is said to have been used in the commission of offence. After investigation, the charge sheet is filed.

¶33