Point of Law : Court has to look into the seriousness and gravity of offences committed and severity of punishment in the event of conviction.

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. praying to cancel the orders dated 23.03.2021, 05.04.2021 and 17.04.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.Nos.464/2021, 576/2021 and 706/2021, respectively, by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B r/w 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned HCGP appearing for the respondent - State. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 are served and unrepresented. Notice in respect respondent No.3 is held sufficient.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the younger brother of deceased - Sunitha, who had lodged a complaint stating that the marriage of the deceased took place with respondent No2./accused No.1 - Manju on 16.02.2020 and at the time of the marriage, they had given gold ornaments and cash of Rs.3,50,000/-and the expenses of the marriage were also borne by the complainant’s family. Two months after the marriage, respondent No.2/accused No.1 - Manju picked up quarrel with the deceased demanding six lakh rupees for construction of his house since the complainant’s family had already supported the family of the Shruthi, elder sister of the deceased during construction of their house and in this regard Panchayath was also held. The mother of the complainant sent the deceased back to the house of accused promising that the house of the accused would be completed and tiles would be laid. On account of failure of crops, complainant’s family could not assist the accused financially. Hence, accused persons started subjecting the deceased to cruelty and even accused No.1 assaulted the deceased asking her to get her share in her father’s property before the marriage of complainant takes place. On 14.02.2021 at about 11 A.M., the complainant received a phone call from his father that Sunitha was admitted in Mysuru Hospital with burn injuries. By the time complainant reached Ramanagar from Bengaluru his father informed him over phone that Sunitha is no more. When complainant came to Periyapatna from Mysuru his villagers told him that Sunitha’s death was accidental and accordingly, a writing was given at Periyapatna Police Station that death of Sunitha was accidental. After funeral of the deceased was over, the complainant found that the deceased voice messages had come to mobile No.9380012311 belonging to Manikanta, a next door neighbour of the complainant from mobile No.7899287800, belonging to accused No.1/husband of the deceased and the said voice messages of the deceased read that, “If anything goes wrong to me, for that accused Manju, accused No.3 Shivamma and applicant i.e., Rajappa/accused No.2 would be responsible.” When he came to know about these messages, which revealed the involvement of all the accused persons, he lodged a complaint and the case came to be registered as Crime No.41/2021. The police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused persons.

4. Accused Nos.2 and 3 have moved petitions in Crl.Misc.Nos.464/2021 and 576/2021, respectively, before the trial Court invoking Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail and accused No.1 moved petition in Crl.Misc.No.706/2021 for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court granted bail in all the cases. While granting anticipatory bail in Crl.Misc.No.464/2021, the trial Court vide order dated 23.03.2021 came to the conclusion that none of the offences alleged against the applicant/accused No.2 is exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment. It is only after the neighbour of the complainant revealing the fact that he has received voice messages of deceased Sunitha, the complainant has lodged complaint with the Periyapatna police. Whether the said messages were really sent by the deceased Sunitha and whether the mobile phone belongs to Sunitha can be ascertained only at the time of trial. The incident took p