Gangadhara vs State of Karnataka Srinivasapura Police Station

Budihal R.B., J.—This is the petition filed by the petitioner-accused No. 1 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 307 r/w. sec. 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 281/2013.

The brief facts of the prosecution case as on 27-11-2013 at about 12.30 p.m. Srirangappa made the written complaint stating that he had three daughters, of them, Shobha attained marriageable age. As they learnt about the petitioner both the parents met together and marriage talks had been held. The second accused Lakshmamma had demanded a gold chain, gold ring and cash of Rs. 50,000/- and also asked for providing gold ornaments to the daughter. The marriage was performed on 24-01-2012 at his expenses and ornaments and cash demanded was given. The couple lived at Meesaganahalli for about 4-5 months. Later, petitioner acting as a mouth piece of his mother started demanding cash of Rs. 50,000/- for taking house in Bangalore on lease telling that failing which, there was no need for her to come back. She was sent back to her parent''s house. Later, he had held talks with elders of the village and left his daughter at the matrimonial house. Then they had been quarreling on four occasions and the same was set right. On 24-11-2013, somebody called him on phone that on 22-11-2013 during night petitioner and his mother had beaten Shobha and admitted her to Hospital at Srinivasapura. Accordingly, on 25-11-2013, he came to the hospital and saw his daughter injured Shobha with 16 stitches on the head and also sustained injuries over the right forearm and left eye. She was not in a position to talk. Later on, Shobha was discharged and admitted at Pavan Nursing Home. She was assaulted only on the ground that she had not procured the cash as desired. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioner and accused No. 2, the mother of the petitioner.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record.

Perusing the complaint there is an averment against both the accused, that both Gangadhara and his mother Lakshmamma assaulted the wife of Gangadhara and they have admitted the injured to the hospital. It is further alleged in the complaint that because the injured has not brought the amount from her parental place, on 22-11-2013 night at 11.30 p.m. the husband Gangadhara and his mother-Lakshmamma both telling that they will not live her stating so both assaulted the injured with clubs with an intention to commit her murder and caused injuries. Looking to the averments made in the complaint as well as in the statement of witnesses, same set of allegations have been made against both of them that they both assaulted the injured with clubs and caused the injuries. The allegation is also that this accused No. 1 was acting as per the say of his mother and giving ill-treatment to his wife. The accused No. 2 - mother has already been granted with bail by the other of the trial Court and looking to the materials collected during investigation it goes to show that the injured sustained grievous injuries. But however, now she has been discharged from the hospital and her life is out of danger. It is also not the case of the prosecution that at this stage the offence alleged u/s 307 of IPC may escalate to higher counts. Since the injured has been discharged from the hospital and offences alleged are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life and under the similar set of allegations against both the accused and as accused No. 2 is already granted with bail, I am of the opinion that the present petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Regarding the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may tamper the prosecution witnesses and he may abscond, stringent conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the materials on record and also to have the parity in the matter, the petition is allowed. The respondent-police is directed to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 307 r/w. sec. 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent-police in Crime No. 281/2013, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate Court;

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;

(iii) The petitioner shall make himself available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for;

(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-police on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the completion of the investigation; and

(v) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond and also the surety bond.