IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1 7 DAY OF JANUARY 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITON No.6073/2010 BETWEEN: C. Manjunath, S/o. C. Jayarangaiah, Aged 27 years, Agriculturist, Residing at Shantinagar, Kolagal Road, Bellary, (Now duress in Central Prison at Bellary) . . . Petitioner (By Shri. Y.S. Shivaprasad, Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka, Rural Police Station, Bellary, By S.P.P., High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore — I. . . . Respondent (By Shri. Vinayak S. Kulkarni, GP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.349/2009 of Bellary Rural P.S., which is registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 34 and 4 of D.P. Act. This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The brief facts are as follows: It is alleged that the petitioner who is the husband of one Pavithra was married to him on 01.07.2007 and at the time of marriage, it transpires that he was given a large amount of money as dowry, apart from gold. Though the petitioner and his wife lived harmoniously for about six months. After that, the allegation is, that there was constant harassment of the deceased to get more dowry from her maternal home. It was also alleged that other family members of the petitioner, who were arrayed as the other accused, were joining the petitioner, in harassing the deceased. It transpires that the petitioner had met with a motor accident and had suffered injuries. This accident was also attributed to the deceased. Such unreasonable and constant harassment, ultimately drove her to commit suicide by consuming pesticide. She is said to have died in a hospital on 27.12.2009. It is in this background, that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and his other family members. Though during the pendency of the investigation the several of his family members have been enlarged on bail, the petitioner had also filed a petition before this Court for anticipatory bail and had withdrawn the same. In the light of the fact, that investigation was on and was not completed. It is after all the other accused have been enlarged on bail and after completion of the investigation that the petitioner who has been detained in prison for over one year is before this Court, contending that there are no overt acts alleged against the petitioner. The alleged constant harassment meted out to the deceased was said to have been attributed to all the accused when the other accused had been enlarged on hail. In that background, by a parity of reasoning, the petitioner is equally entitled to be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has spent a substantial period in jail and would certainly be entitled to bail 4 since his enlargement on bail would nor tamper the prosecution nor at this point of time could be said that the petitioner is capable of influencing any prosecution witness as there are no overt acts alleged against the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner having been denied bail throughout the period is for the reason that he his instrumental in having instigated the deceased to have committed suicide. The final act of the deceased in having committed suicide was after the sustained period of torture and humiliation by the petitioner and others. The absence of any allegation on overt act against the petitioner by itself is not a ground for enlarging the petitioner on bail. The petitioner being the husband of the deceased was the prime accused, if he is enlarged on bail, it is likely that he would influence and threaten the prosecution witnesses in order to dilute the charges against him. He would therefore, seek that the accused be denied bail and that the trial be allowed to run its course. 5. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner by a parity of reasoning and given the circumstances of the case, the possible sentence that may imposed on the petitioner even if he is found guilty on the allegations, being for a short term and the petitioner having already suffered an extended custody. Having regard to the opinion expressed by the Apex Court in the case of “Kiran Kumar v. State ofMY.” 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1017, when a person is convicted and sentenced to a short-term imprisonment the normal rule is that when his appeal is pending the sentence should be suspended and the rejection is only by way of exception and be putforward for such rejection. If the short-term sentence is allowed to run out during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal itself will become infructuous. Applying the same ratio it could be said that if the petitioner is made to suffer custody for a longer period the very object of trial is taken away as he would have suffered the punishment, 6 even ifhe was found not guilty. Accordingly, the petitioner is to be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: 1) He shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of ?20,000/- with a solvent surety for a like sum, to the satisfbction ofthe trial Court. 2) He shall make himself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purpose ofinvestigation. 3) He shall not leave the jurisdiction ofthe trial Court without seeking leave ofthat Court. 4) He shall not seek to induce or threaten the prosecution witnesses. Sd! JUDGK Rsh