:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P.NO.100439 OF 2018 BETWEEN: KAMANAYAKA @ KAMANNA S/O HONNURAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O JIGENAHALLI VILLAGE, SANDUR TALUK, BALLARI. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.R.M.JAVED, ADV.) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GUDEKOTE P.S., KUDLIGI TALUK, REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.ANAND K.NAVALGIMATH, HCGP) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER(ACCUSED NO.1) ON BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH GUDEKOTE POLICE STATION, KUDLGI TALUK CRIME NO.74/2017 (NOW S.C.75/2017) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 304B, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: :2: ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.1 seeking regular bail in crime No.74/2017 now pending before the Principal Sessions Judge at Ballari in S.C.No.75/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. The petitioner herein is accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the father of accused No.1 and he expired during investigation. Accused Nos.3 and 4 are the sister and brother of accused No.1 and they are already enlarged on regular bail.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 27.05.2011. At the time of the marriage, a sum of Rs.35,000/- and 2.5 tolas of gold was given to accused No.1 by way of dowry. The accused was in the habit of drinking alcohol and was frequently quarreling with the deceased and pressuring her to bring additional dowry from her parents’ house. On account of the failure of the parents of the deceased to satisfy his demand, he was ill-treating and harassing the deceased. Being unable to bear the cruelty meted out by accused No.1, on 01.06.2017 at about 1.15 p.m., the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set her on fire in the house of accused No.1.
4. The learned Government Pleader has not filed any statement opposing the petition. However, he has orally opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the charge sheet papers. The investigation is already completed. The material allegations levelled against the petitioner attracting the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC are required to be substantiated by the testimony of close relatives of the deceased. Therefore, there cannot be any apprehension that the petitioner would prevail upon the said witnesses. Insofar as the accusations attracting under Section 304(A) of IPC is concerned, the said offence is also required to be substantiated during the trial. The apprehension with regard to threatening the witnesses and tampering with the evidence can be allayed by imposing necessary conditions. The custody of the petitioner is not required to be extended solely by way of punishment. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in crime No.74/2017 of Gudekote Police Station on furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court, subject to the following conditions.
i) Petitioner shall appear before the trial Court as and when required.
ii) Petitioner shall not threaten or lure the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper the evidence.
iii) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.