T. Thimmaraju vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Public Prosecutor.

The petitioner is said to be the husband of one Roopa who was married to him in the year 2009. It is alleged that the petitioner was provided with dowry of 100 grams gold, one motor cycle and Rs. 2.00 lakh by way of cash. However, it is alleged that the petitioner and his family members consisting of his mother, father, sisters and brothers-in-law had constantly harassed Roopa for dowry and had tortured her both physically and mentally. This had driven her to commit suicide, by hanging. On the basis of the complaint, the petitioner and his family members were arraigned as accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The petitioner and his family members having approached the Court below seeking bail, the Court had enlarged all the family members of the petitioner, except the petitioner on bail, on the ground that the allegations are of a serious nature and he being none other than the husband of the deceased, it is quite possible that he did commit the alleged offence.

The allegations were generally made against all the members of the family including the petitioner, of such ill-treatment of physical and mental harassment meted out to the deceased during her life time. The Court below having thought it fit to grant bail to all the family members, it ought to have granted bail to the petitioner on the same token of reasoning. Hence, it is inexplicable that though there are no serious allegations against the petitioner specifically, only because the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, the rejection of bail to the present petitioner is unfair and leads to a miscarriage of justice.

The learned State Public Prosecutor would seek to justify the reasoning of the Court below.

There is substance in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that it may not be fair to place the present petitioner on a different footing, when the allegations were generally made against all the family members of the petitioner, including the petitioner and they having been granted bail, while bail in favour of the petitioner is rejected.

Therefore, the petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with one solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Court below.

(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses

(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.

(iv) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

(v) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.