KABC010086282024 IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-46) DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2024 PRESENT: Sri Manjunatha, B.A., LL.B., XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. CRL.MISC. No.3059/2024 Petitioner Karthik.V S/o Vasu, a/a 36 yrs., r/a no.69, New Vinayaka Layout, Chikkanagamangala Road, Near Cotton Factory, Doddanagamangala, Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100. (By Sri/Smt: S. Raghunath Gowda, Advocate) AND Respondent State by Parappana Agrahara 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/accused 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 by the respondent Police on the complaint of Smt. Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024 Saritha, a/a 40 yrs., who is the father of deceased-Smt. Nirmaladevi for the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act in their Crime No.167/2024 in the interest of justice. 2.The brief facts of the bail petition is that on the basis of the information of Smt. Saritha, a/a 40 Yrs., the respondent police registered case in Crime No.167/2024 against the petitioner for the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPCand Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act r/w Sec.34 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 24.03.2024, and produced him before the concerned Magistrate, and he was remanded to judicial custody and till date he is in 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 report of 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 the sides and perused the materials on record. 6.The points that arises for consideration of this Court are as under: Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024

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 : IntheAffirmative 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 in crime No.167/2024 for the offences punishable U/s.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 deceased-Smt. Nirmala Devi, which is not in dispute. It is alleged in the complaint that in the year 2015 the marriage of daughter of complainant by name Nirmaladevi was solemnized with accused No.1, and out of the wedlock they blessed with two children. The deceased and accused No.1 are started residing at house bearing No.69, New Vinayaka Layout, Electronic City Phse-02, Doddanagamangala, within the limits of Parappanagara P.S., Bangalore. At the time of marriage on demand the accused No.1 received gold, cash, Motorcycle and house hold articles etc., as dowry from the complainant. After the marriage the accused No.1 subjected the deceased-Smt. Nirmladevi to physical and mental cruelty in demanding Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024 additional dowry by abusing and assaulting her. And on 22.03.2024 accused No.1 called the complainant and informed that her daughter Nirmladevi committed suicide by hanging at 3.30 p.m. It is also alleged that the accused persons are the route cause for instigating and abetting deceased-Smt. Nirmala Deviby subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty to commit suicide, , the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against accused persons for the alleged offence before the respondent police. 9.The contention of petitioner is that he is innocent of the offences alleged and there is absolutely no case made out against him for the alleged offences. But, as pointed out by the learned Prosecutor, the respondent police have registered FIR in Crime No.167/2024 against the petitioner and others for the offence punishable U/s.306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act, investigation is not yet completed, at this stage if the bail is granted in favour of the petitioner, then he may abscond and also tamper the prosecution witnesses and hamper the investigation, and this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him. Hence, at this stage the contention of petitioner that he is innocent of the offences alleged against him does not stand for consideration. It is not desirable on the part of this Court at this stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him. 10.On the basis of arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, verified the FIR Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024 and relevant case papers. On perusal of the entire records placed before the Court, it discloses that the petitioner and others have caused the death of deceased-Smt. Nirmaladevi by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty in demanding additional dowry by abusing and assaulting her. It is also equally important to note that offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable U/s.306 of IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act. The offence U/s.306 of IPC 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. 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. In (2012) 1 Supreme Courtcases 40 (Sanjay Chandra Vs.CBI) the Hon'ble Court has held that "everypersondetainedorarrestedisentitledtospeedy trial-Trial may take considerable time and accused will have to remain in jail longer than the period of detention – Therefore, it is not in the interest of justice that the accused should be in jail for an indefinite period – Court will have to consider while granting bail about the seriousness of charges and severity of punishment – Merely the offence alleged against the accused is serious one itself should not deter the Court from enlarging on bail when there is no serious contention from the prosecution that if the accused is released on Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024 bail, they would interfere with the trail or tamper with the witness.” And in (2011)1SCC784:(2011)1SCC(Cri)409in state ofKeralaV.Raneefhasstated(SCCP.789para15). "In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the Court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who willrestoresomanyyearsofhislifespentincustody? Is Article 21 of the Constitution, which is the most basic of all the fundamental rights in our Constitution, not violated in such a case? Of course this is not the only factor, but it is certainly one of the important factors in deciding whether to grant bail. In the present case the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody(as stated in para two of his counter- affidavit), and we see no reason why he should be deniedbail. 12.By applying the above ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the present fact of the case has to be analyze and considered. I have perused the averments made in the petition, complaint, F.I.R. and other material produced on record. The mother of the deceased filed this complaint alleging that the petitioner and others are the route cause for the death of her daughter. However, it is a matter of further investigation. It is settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024 punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the accused at trial. Therefore generally it is the rule to allow bail rather than refuse bail. Further the fact that an offence is serious one does not afford a sufficient ground to refuse bail, but the guiding principle while exercising discretion is the probability of the accused appearing to take his trial and not his supposed guilt or innocence. There are no materials to deny bail. The petitioner is the permanent resident as shown in the cause title and this fact has not been disputed by the prosecution, as such the presence of petitioner can be secured easily, hence, the question of absconding of the petitioners does not arise at all. The objections raised by the learned Public Prosecutor can be met by imposing stringent conditions. There are absolutely no materials produced by the prosecution to show that the custodial interrogation of this petitioner is necessary in further investigation of this case. Even though at this stage this Court can not come to the conclusion that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against him, there are no materials produced by the prosecution to show that the petitioner is required for further investigation. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for a period of 29 days, as on this day, as he was remanded to judicial custody on 24.03.2024. Hence, the question of retaining the petitioner in judicial custody without any reason does not arise from the facts and circumstances of this case. Moreover the petitioner has undertaken to obey any conditions that may be imposed on him by this court. Hence, there is no reason to reject the bail Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024 to the petitioner at this stage and apprehension of the learned Public Prosecutor can be suitably addressed by imposing proper and necessary conditions. Therefore, the petitioner has made out sufficient grounds for his release on bail at this stage as prayed for. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative. 13.Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court on point No.1, this court pass the following:- O R D E R The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The petitioner is hereby ordered to be released on bail on his executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Magistrate in Crime No.167/2024 of Parappana Agrahara P.S., subject to the following conditions:- 1.The petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by the I.O. as and when required till the final report is filed. Further, he shall assist the I.O. in further investigation of the case. He shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on first Sunday of every month in between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the I.O., till filing of final report or further orders whichever is earlier. Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024 2.The petitioner shall appear before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and before this court as and when directed. 3.He shall not directly or indirectly holdout threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner. 4.He shall not tamper with prosecution witnesses or hamper further investigation of the case in any manner. 5.He shall not intimidate the complainant, 6.He shall not commit similar offences or any offence in future. 7.He shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior permission. 8.He shall not change his place of residence outside the jurisdiction of Bangalore City without prior intimation 9.He shall furnish his residential id address proof. 10.In the event of violation of any of the above conditions, the above bail shall stand automatically canceled. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2024) (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Digitally signed by MANJUNATH MANJUNATHNAIK RAMA RAMA NAIK Date: 2024.04.27 17:17:11 +0530 Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024 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 allowed. (Manjunatha) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Crl.Misc.No.3059/2024