Sri. Sharanappa vs State

B. Manohar, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in Crime No. 52/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304(B) r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered by the Nelogi Police Station.

The case of the prosecution is that the father of the deceased Maremma filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 17-03-2014 alleging that due to ill-treatment and harassment given by the husband of the deceased and other family members for non-payment of the dowry amount, the deceased Maremma died. However, the complainant was informed that the deceased died due to electric shock. Accordingly, a case was registered against the petitioner and his family members.

The family members of the petitioner approached I Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga for grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail in Crl. Misc. Nos. 291/2014 and 424/2014. The said petitions were allowed by the Sessions Judge by order dated 30-04-2014. However, application filed by the petitioner - the husband of the deceased was rejected by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Gulbarga suspecting that the petitioner is involved in the death of the deceased - Maremma. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for bail.

The specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that when deceased -Maremma switched on the motor, she was electrocuted and died. There is no allegation of demanding dowry prior to the death of Maremma and only after the death of Maremma, with a malafide intention, the allegation has been made regarding demand of dowry. The petitioner is a resident of Nelogi village, Gulbarga and he owns agricultural properties. For the unfortunate event, the petitioner cannot be held responsible and hence sought for bail.

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent contended that the role of the petitioner - husband of the deceased cannot be ruled out for the electric shock caused to the deceased. Since there is an allegation regarding demand of dowry against the petitioner, he is not entitled for bail and sought for dismissal of the petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant records and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.

The records clearly disclose that the wife of the petitioner - Smt. Maremma died on 17-03-2014 due to electric shock. Thereafter, a complaint was made by the father of the deceased alleging demand of dowry by the petitioner and his parents. Prior to the death of Maremma, there was no allegation with regard to ill-treatment or demand of dowry by the petitioner and his parents. Apart from that, a complaint was also lodged against all the family members of the petitioner. They have approached the Jurisdictional court and obtained regular bail and anticipatory bail. The petitioner is similarly placed. On parity, the petitioner is also entitled for bail on similar conditions.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner -accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 302, 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered by the Nelogi Police Station in Crime No. 52/2014, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge;

(ii) The petitioner shall give his attendance before the concerned Police Station on first Sunday of each month between 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., till the completion of the investigation.;

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon for the purpose of investigation of the case.

(iv) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses in any manner.