KABC010082542024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.2926/2024 Petitioner K. N. Santhosh S/o Nagaiah, a/a 33 Yrs., r/o Lawyer Nayak Building, Near Chamundeshwari Temple, Reddy Kate, Channanayakanapalya, Doddbidarekallu, Bangalore-560 073. (By Sri/Smt: Dharmapal, Adv., ) AND Respondent State by Peenya P.S., Bengaluru. (By the learned Public Prosecutor) ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for petitioner has filed bail petition U/ s.439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail consequent upon his remand to judicial custody in the case registered against him and others by the respondent Police on the complaint of Smt. Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 Bharathi, a/a 49 Yrs., who is the mother of deceased- Smt.Chaitra for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 304B and 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act in their Crime No.99/2024 in the interest of justice. 2.On the basis of the information of complainant-Smt. Bharathi, a/a 49 Yrs., the Respondent Police have registered crime in FIR No.99/2024 against the Petitioner and others for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 304B and 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The petitioner is the accused No.1 as per the FIR The respondent police arrested the petitioner on 27.02.2024 and produced before the jurisdictional Court, wherein he was remanded to judicial custody. 3.The petitioner claims innocence and contending that he has been falsely implicated in the said case and further contending that he has not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint. He is ready to abide by any conditions that would be imposed by this court, therefore the petitioner has prayed for allowing this petition. 4.The Learned Public prosecutor has filed objection to this bail petition in detail along with the report of the I.O., by submitting that this petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and for the reasons stated in the objection and has prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5.Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials on record. Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 6.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are as under:

1. Whether the petitioner has made out

sufficient grounds for his release on bail atthisstageasprayedfor?

2. Whatorder?

7.This Court has answered the above points are as under: PointNo.1 : IntheNegative PointNo.2 : Asperfinalorder forthefollowing: R E A S O N S

8. Point No.1: On considering the papers on record, it is

evident to note that the respondent police have registered case against the petitioner and others in crime No.99/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.498A, 304B and 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The fact that the complainant/informant is the mother and petitioner is the husband of the deceased-Smt. Chaitra, which is not in dispute. It is alleged in the complaint that about five years back marriage of her daughter by name-Chaitra was fixed with some other boy, and the accused No.1 who is the relative of the complainant took the deceased-Smt. Chaitra and got married without informing the complainant. After the marriage the accused persons and deceased were residing in a rented house at Doddabidarakallu, Bangalore. Thereafter the accused persons subjected the daughter of complainant to physical and mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry and accused Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 No.1 used to stay with another girl, when deceased question, the accused No.1 used to assault her. His daughter has intimated the same to her. Complainant had given Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused No.1 in the interest of happiness of her daughter. The accused No.1 continued to harass the daughter of complainant in demanding dowry, as they have taken any dowry at the time of marriage, and the complainant has sold the property and received money. The accused No.2 and 3 are also in support of accused No.1 harassing the daughter of complainant, when she question them, the accused No.1 by wrongfully confining the daughter of complainant in a room and assaulting with the belt. Forcibly the accused persons sent the daughter of complainant for work. Thereafter the accused persons ousted the daughter of complainant from the matrimonial house. After advise to the accused No.1 sent back the deceased to the house of accused persons. On 25.02.2024 at 10.44 p.m. accused No.3 telephoned to the son of complainant and informed that Smt. Chaitra committed suicide and she was taken to hospital. It is the case of the complainant that the cause of death of her daughter deceased- Smt.Chaitra was due to the abetment of the accused No.1 to 3 who subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in demanding additional dowry and also due to illicit relationship of accused No.1 with other girl. Accordingly, complainant has lodged the complaint before the respondent police against the accused persons. Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024

9. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is

no intention or motive specifically attributed to the petitioner, only on suspicious ground the case has been registered against the petitioner on the false complaint of mother of the deceased, and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. It is also contended that though there is no averment in the complaint regarding the abetment by the petitioner and in spite of the same, he has been falsely implicated with a sole intention to harass and humiliating on false complaint that has been registered. The petitioner hails from a respectable family having deep roots in the society without any criminal antecedents, ready to furnish surety to the satisfaction of the Court and abide the conditions. Hence, he has prayed to allow this petition. 10.Per contra it is vehemently argued and contended in the objection by the prosecution that prima facie it discloses that petitioner is involved in committing the alleged offence, and at this stage of the case the petitioner cannot be considered as innocent unless a full-fledged trial is commenced. Further it is argued and objected that the investigation is still pending regarding the death and involvement of the act of petitioner in committing the alleged offence. The Learned Public Prosecutor in the detailed objections contended that the investigation is still in progress regarding the harassment in demanding additional dowry, that lead to the cause of death of deceased-Smt.Chaitra, daughter of complainant, and at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail there is every chance of absconding from the Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 jurisdiction of this court, intimidate and tamper the complainant and other material witnesses. Hence, submits that the petitioner is are not entitled to be released on bail. 11.It is well settled principle of law that the granting of bail is discretionary power of the Court and every case should be considered on the basis of facts of each case. On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Prosecutor, verified the FIR and relevant case papers. On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court, it discloses that the offences alleged against the petitioner is punishable U/s.498A 304B and 306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, the offence U/s.304B of IPC, is though not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, but imprisonment for not less than 7 years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life. The offence U/s.306 of IPC, which is though not punishable with death, but with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine and triable by this Court. 12.On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court, it prima facie discloses that the petitioner, as per the averments of the complaint discloses that the petitioner in collusion with accused No.2 and 3 has subjected the deceased- Smt.Chaitra to cruelty in demanding dowry. Further the documents discloses that the deceased-Smt.Chaitra has committed suicide in the matrimonial house where the petitioner was present. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the petitioner in collusion with accused No.2 and 3 has subjected Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 the deceased to cruelty in demanding dowry and her death appears to be suspicious. It is vehemently argued by the prosecution that heinous offence U/s.304B of IPC has been alleged against the petitioner, and an investigation is very much required to ascertain the cause of death of the deceased. Further it is contended that the materials that has been produced by the prosecution creates suspicion regarding the death of the deceased, and the same would be clear only after thorough investigation. Further it is contended at this stage of the case the petitioner cannot be considered as innocent and if he is enlarged on bail, he would abscond and would not co- operate with the investigation. Per contra the learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently argued that the there was a cordial relationship between the petitioner and the deceased till the date of incident. It is also contended that the documents available on records clearly establishes that the deceased has committed suicide on her own without any abetment or harassment by the petitioner. At this juncture the exact fact has to cause of death and the mode of the incident that has been occurred cannot be gathered by this Court on the documents placed by the prosecution and arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that when there is serious allegations against the petitioner for having committed the alleged offence U/s.304B of IPC, the investigation is very much required. Further unless and until the investigation is completed the Court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent as contended in the Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 petition. The I.O., has prayed in his report that they required time for investigating the case, as they have to get the opinion of the experts. It is very pertinent to note that at this stage if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is likelihood that he might abscond and would not be available for investigation causing delay in filing the charge sheet. Further it is equally important to note and consider the serious objection of the prosecution that if the petitioner is released before the investigation complete, they would influence and tamper the prosecution witnesses. 13.Further as per the materials on record it discloses that the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 27.02.2024 and till date his custody is continued. It is pertinent to note that the investigation of the case is not yet completed, and the report submitted by the investigation officer discloses that the documents and material objects, which have been recovered, which prima facie discloses the involvement of petitioner in committing the alleged offences. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2021 CRI.L.J.2678: AIR online 2021 SC 205 in Criminal Appeal No.343 of 2021(arising out of SLP(Crl.,) No.1530 of 2021) and Interlocutory Application Nos.24659 and 41412 of 2021 dated 19.03.2021 (State of Kerala V. Mahesh). In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that when the incident is heinous, the Court has to consider the material on record, which prima facie made out reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner/accused has committed the alleged offence. The Court should not proceed Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 to grant bail by considering the period of custody of the accused till the investigation completed. In the instant case also the investigation is yet to be completed and charge sheet is not filed. Considering all these aspects, it is found that at the stage of investigation if the petitioner is released on bail, it may cause delay in investigation and there is possibility of accused influencing the witnesses . Further in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V., Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977. In para 11 of the said judgment the Court has held that while granting bail the Court should exercise its discretion in a judicial manner and not as a matter of course. ItisalsonecessaryfortheCourtgrantingbail toconsider (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supportingevidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnessorapprehensionofthreattothecomplainant, (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge, as a dictum of law laid down in Ram Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598:2002SCC(Cri)688that “Grant of bail though being a discretionary order – but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent cannot be sustained. Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 And also in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee; (2010) 14 SCC 496: (AIR 2011 SC 274), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 9….However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously, andstrictlyincompliance withthebasisprincipleslaid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, amount other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while consideringanapplicationforbailare: (i)Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused committed the offence; (ii)natureandgravityoftheaccusation; (iii)severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if releasedonbail; (v)character, behaviour, means, position and standingoftheaccused; (vi)likelihoodoftheoffencebeingrepeated; (vii)reasonableapprehensionofthewitnessesbeing influenced; and (viii)danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grantofbail. Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 14.In the instant case while applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the fact of the case, it is clear that while disposing the bail petition of the petitioner involved in heinous offence, the Court has to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner as per the dictum of ratio by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said case, and not a matter of course. The gravity of the offence and the manner, has to how the crime has been executed has to be taken into consideration. In the instant case prima facie the complaint discloses that the petitioner in collusion with accused No.2 and 3 has caused the death of deceased-Smt.Chaitra by subjecting her to mental harassment in demanding dowry. The investigation is still in progress, and at this stage the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is sufficient chance that he might abscond and shall not be available for investigation of the case. Further the material witnesses, might be tampered by the petitioner, if he is enlarged on bail. In view of the same the conduct of the petitioner creates a suspicion and prima facie support the case of prosecution that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage at the time of investigation, the petitioner might abscond and would not be available for investigation, and by his undue influence tamper the prosecution witnesses.

15. Further as per the materials on record it is clear that

the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 27.02.2024, and he is in judicial custody for a period of 58 days is not a valid ground to grant bail in his favour at this stage as per the reasons and discussions made above. There is absolutely no Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 ground made out by the petitioner to grant bail to him as sought for in the petition. Hence, this bail petition does not merit consideration on the facts of the case and also in law, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged against petitioner is not entitle for bail as prayed. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the Negative.

16. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point

No.1, this court proceed to pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. CC & SJ, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATH RAMA NAIK RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.29 12:38:43 +0530 Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.2926/2024