Karnataka High Court

Siddanagouda And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2022

Author:
V. Srishananda

Bench:
V. Srishananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200064/2022

BETWEEN:

1. SIDDANAGOUDA
S/O BHEEMARAYAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
AGE 52 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,

2. CHAMUNDI @ SANGAMMA
W/O SIDDANAGOUDA POLICE PATIL,
AGE 50 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,

BOTH ARE R/O HUBBAL(K),
TQ.HUNSAGI, DIST.YADGIRI-585201.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY ADDL. SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585106.
(THROUGH KEMBHAVI P.S.,
DIST.YADGIRI-585201.)
... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT THE REGULAR BAIL TO
THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 IN CRIME NO.
4/2021 (C.C.NO. 171/2021) OF KEMBHAVI POLICE
STATION, DISTRICT-YADGIR, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 304(B), 306, R/W 34 OF
IPC
,
AND U/SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,
PENDING BEFORE THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDG AND JMFC
COURT AT SHORAPUR.

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

ORDER

Heard Sri Ashok Harnalli learned Senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. The present petition is filed under
Section 439

of Cr.P.C after this court rejected the anticipatory bail of

the petitioners by order dated 08.03.2021 and on

01.09.2021.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

Accused/petitioners are the father-in-law and

mother-in-law of victim-Mallamma. Mallamma was married

to Bheemrayagouda on 24.05.2020 at Paramanand

Temple, Hebbal Village as per Hindu rights and customs. It
is contended in the complaint that a sum of `1.00 lakh

cash and 6 tolas of gold and other household articles were

given as dowry at the time of marriage by the parents of

Mallamma. Complaint averments further reveal that after

two months of marriage there was a further demand of

dowry and the same was not met by the parents of

Mallamma, the accused persons including the present

petitioners started harassing Mallamma physically and

mentally. When the same was noticed by the brother of

Mallamma, he visited the house of the accused and

assured the petitioners and their son that after the cotton

crop is harvested, the demand would be met and

requested the petitioners and the husband of Mallamma to

treat Mallamma properly.

4. When the matter stood thus, on 06.01.2021 at

about 1.00 p.m. Mallamma and her husband visited the

complainant's house. In the evening there was a talk

regarding further demand of cash and gold. After finishing

the dinner Mallamma and her husband were made to stay
in another house belonging to the complainant wherein a

shop is also situated. On 07.01.2021 as usual Mallamma

got up early and came back to the house of the

complainant to attend the household work. Since her

husband did not visit the house of the complainant she

went back to the house where they stayed previous night.

Complainant also reached the shop around 8.45 a.m. and

noticed that Mallamma's husband were in a hurry to move

somewhere in a car. Being suspicious about his unusual

behavior, complainant enquired his son-in- law

Bheemrayagouda as to where he is going. However, he

replied that he is going to Hebbal. Being suspicious about

his conduct, complainant went inside the house adjacent to

the shop and noticed that Mallamma had torn out her tali

and feeling uncomfortable. On further enquiry Mallamma

revealed that her husband has again demanded additional

dowry and also abused her and being frustrated in life she

has consumed pesticide. Immediately she was shifted to

the hospital with the help of others. However, despite the

best treatment she succumbed in the hospital at about
10.30 a.m on 07.01.2021 and accordingly a complaint

came to be lodged against the Bheemrayagouda and his

parents who are the petitioners in this case.

5. Police after registering the case for the

offences punishable under
Section 498A
and
304B
read

with
Section 34
of IPC and
Sections 3
and
of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, completed the investigation and filed

charge sheet. The matter is now pending before the

jurisdictional court for adjudication. In the meantime, the

petitioners approached the District Court for grant of bail.

Same came to be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioners are

before this court.

6. In the petition, following grounds have been

raised :-

x That, Petitioners are innocent, they have been involved in
this case just to harassing them with the ill motive and with
personal vendetta.

x That, looking into complaint averments and entire charge
sheet materials, one month prior to the date of alleged
incident, the deceased came to the parental house and
after three days husband being accused No.1 came to the
parental house of the deceased, wherein deceased
committed suicide by consuming insecticide in the parental
home itself making allegation against accused No.1
husband with regard to demand of dowry, cruelty and
abetment to commit suicide. So, to attract the
Sec.304 (B)

of IPC, the allegation of cruelty or harassment should be
caused "soon before her death". Hence, so for as
petitioners are concerned absolutely there are no materials
to attract the provisions of
Sec.304(B)
of IPC.

x That, looking into the complaint averments and entire
charge sheet materials absolutely there are no materials
against the petitioners with regard to abetting to commit
the suicide. Since as on the date of alleged incident
petitioners were in their village. So, to attract the provisions
of Sec 306 of
IPC
, the intention of the accused to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased persons to commit suicide
is must. Hence, thee benefit of bail may kindly be extended
to the petitioners.

x That, both the petitioners are suffering from old age
aliments and both are sick, petitioner No.2 further suffering
with knee problem and for that it is difficult for her to attend
the nature call. Hence, the benefit of bail as provided
under proviso to U/s 437 of
Cr.P.C
. may kindly be
extended to the petitioners. 12. That, presumptions with
regard to
Sec.304 (B)
&
of IPC would come into
picture only when, prosecution proved its case with regard
to fact relating to dowry harassment and cruelty. Hence,
while considering the bail application, the presumption of
law with regard to dowry death and abetment while suicide
would not come in the way commit to considering the bail
application, the presumption of law with regard to dowry
death and abetment while suicide would not come in the
way commit to considering the bail application.

x That, the alleged offences are not punishable with death or
life imprisonment.

x That, investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed.
the in interference question of is Hence, there no
investigation.

x That, petitioners were voluntarily Surrendered on 15-12-
2021. Since, then they are in judicial custody.

x That, petitioners hails from respected family and they are
having movable and immovable properties. Hence, there is
no question of fleeing away from justice.

x That, petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any
stringent conditions, if imposed by this Hon'ble Court, while
enlarging them on bail.

x That, petitioners are ready to furnish the surety as directing
by this Hon'ble Court.

7. Reiterating the above grounds learned Senior

Counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli vehemently contended that

the petitioners had no role whatsoever in the incident

inasmuch as the incident has occurred in the parental
house. He also contended that the petitioners are aged

59 and 48 years respectively and they had no role

whatsoever in the alleged incident of harassment and since

the investigation is completed, continuation of the accused

in the judicial custody is no longer warranted.

8. He also pointed out that further continuation of

the petitioners in the custody would amount to pre-trial

conviction and sought for grant of bail. He also assured

that any conditions that would be imposed by this court for

the smooth trial would be adhered to by the petitioners

and sought for grant of bail.

9. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposes the grant of bail by contending that

despite best efforts, the petitioners are not available to the

investigating agency. He also contended that conduct and

role played by the petitioners have been stated by the

prosecution witnesses with graphic details before the

investigating agency in a clear and categorical terms which

would indicate their role in the incident. In view of the fact
that the charge sheet witnesses have consistently stated

about the additional demand of dowry and the present

petitioners have joined hands with Bheemrayanagouda

who is the husband of the deceased in harassing

Mallamma which ultimately resulted in committing suicide

by Mallamma and therefore, the prosecution prima facie

enjoys the presumption available to the prosecution under

Section 113A
and
113B
of the Indian Evidence Act and

therefore, the petitioners are required to make out special

grounds to seek an order of grant of bail and from the

grounds urged in the bail petition, no such special grounds

are made out and thus sought for dismissal of the bail

petition.

10. In the light of the arguments put-forth on

behalf of the parties, this court meticulously considered

the materials available on record.

11. It is settled principles of law that at the time of

considering the bail petition, this court cannot hold a mini

trial to find out the merits or demerits of the case as the
same may prejudice the case of the parties one way or the

other. Suffice to say that the materials available on record

clearly indicate that there was harassment to Mallamma in

the matrimonial house which ultimately resulted in

Mallamma visiting the house of her parents. There was a

discussion a day earlier to the incident as to the additional

demand of dowry. The brother of Mallamma had also

assured the Bheemrayagouda and his parents that

additional dowry amount would be met soon after the

harvesting of the cotton crop. When the matter stood thus,

even after assuring that the additional dowry amount

would be met by the complainant party, on 07.01.2021, in

the early hours of morning, Mallamma visited the parental

house and again visited the place of incident. When

complainant also visited the place of incident, he found

accused in the place of incident and his behavior were

suspicion immediately complainant gone inside the place of

incident and found that Mallamma had consumed

pesticides. The statement given by Mallamma to the

complainant assumes a greater importance in deciding the
case of the parties. This court at this stage need not

consider the evidentiary value or probative value of such

statements as the same may prejudice the case of the

parties. It is for the trial court to decide after full-fledged

trial whether the prosecution has made out a case to

attract the offence under
Section 498A
and
304B
of IPC or

not.

12. Suffice to say, in view of the presumption

available to the prosecution under
Section 113A
and
113B

of the Indian Evidence Act, this court is of the considered

opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are not

sufficient to classify them or special reasons for this court

to exercise the discretionary power vested in it under

Section 439
of Cr.P.C so as to accept the request for grant

of bail.

13. For the forgoing discussions, this court pass

the following :

ORDER

Criminal petition is rejected.
However, taking note of the fact that the incident is

of the year 2021 the trial court is directed to expedite the

trial.

The dismissal of the bail petition shall not come in

the way of the petitioners seeking grant of bail with

successive bail application if there are positive changed

circumstances in the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sn