Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1188
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ashok G Nijagannavar, J.
Santhosh B C - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 4520 of 2020
Decided On : 30-09-2020
P.P. Jayakumara, Advocate, Rohith B J, Advocate
The gravity of the offences alleged alone cannot be a ground to reject bail. Valid grounds for granting bail, character of the evidence, and the accused's circumstances are crucial in considering bail applications.
Headnote:
Bail - Offences under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act - Sections 302, 304B, 498A, 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Fact of the Case:
The accused, including the parents of the main accused, filed a bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in a case registered for offences under Sections 302, 304B, 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no material evidence to connect the parents of the main accused in the commission of the alleged offences. The court also considered the health conditions of the accused and granted bail to the parents of the main accused with certain conditions.
Issues: The main issues were the involvement of the accused in the alleged offences and the consideration of bail based on the nature and seriousness of the offences, character of the evidence, and the circumstances peculiar to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the gravity of the offences, the character of the evidence, and the health conditions of the accused in granting bail. It also emphasized the need for valid grounds for granting bail and the imposition of stringent conditions to address objections raised by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The petition in respect of the main accused was dismissed as not pressed. The parents of the main accused were ordered to be released on bail with certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Ashok G. Nijagannavar, J. - This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Crime No.97/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B, 498A read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Arasikere Rural Police Station.
2. On the complaint filed by the father of the victim, the police have registered the case. The allegations are that petitioner No.1-accused No.1 married the complainant s daughter on 24.03.2017. At the time of marriage, accused No.1 was given dowry of Rs.1,50,000/-. After marriage, for about one year the complainant s daughter was looked after well. Thereafter, petitioner No.1-accused No.1 and his parents viz., petitioner Nos.2 and 3, who are accused Nos.2 and 3, and other family members started causing mental and physical harassment to get more dowry. Despite advise given by holding panchayat, the accused had not stopped their harassment. The complainant s daughter has given birth to a child, as such, the complainant was invited to attend the naming ceremony of the child. At that time, the accused had harassed the victim to force her parents to get additional dowry of Rs.50,000/-. On 03.07.2020 a person by name Sri.Anand called and informed the complainant over the phone that his daughter has expired. As per the information given by the residents of Bomanahalli village it was learnt that petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the murder by causing harassment. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. The bail petition filed by them is rejected by II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hassan.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a memo would be filed for not pressing the petition in respect of petitioner No.1-accused No.1. Further it is submitted that petitioners Nos.2 and 3 i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3, are the parents of accused No.1, they are not involved in commission of the offence as alleged in the complaint. They have been arrested on 15.07.2020 and due to detention they have been put to great hardship and injustice.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP has submitted that there are allegations against all the accused in respect of harassment caused to the complainant s daughter. In the event of granting bail, they are likely to tamper the prosecution witness.
6. As could be seen from the records, initially FIR was registered on 15.07.2020 in pursuance of the complaint filed by the father of the victim. Thereafter, the brother of the victim Sowmya filed another complaint, wherein it is stated that on 03.07.2020 about 3:10 p.m., Smt.Lakshmamma, the mother of the victim, had spoken to her daughter over the phone and the victim Sowmya had informed that she was quite healthy and she was having food and thereafter, at 03:45 p.m. one of the relative of accused No.1 informed about the death of victim Sowmya. On enquiry, accused No.3-Jayamma informed that the victim was suffering from cold and cough and she was sleeping in the house. When the accused Nos.1 and 3 came back to the house, the victim did not open the door and when they entered the house from back door, she was found dead. Since the definite cause of death is not known to them, post-mortem is necessary. In pursuance of the said complaint, UDR No.10/2020 was registered.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 are aged persons. Accused No.3-Jayamma is suffering from several ailments. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have undergone treatment for COVID-19 symptoms with the history of giddiness and chest pain. Even though she is not tested COVID-19 positive, their health condition is not good.
8. It is well settled principle that the gravity of the offences alleged alone cannot be a ground to reject the bail. In a decision in the case of Jayendra
