The LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72), on June 28, 2022, rejected the anticipatory bail application filed by Gangadhar, the brother-in-law (Accused No. 2) of the deceased, in connection with a case involving dowry death and murder. The petitioner sought relief under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. in Crl. Misc. No. 6064/2022, concerning Crime No. 193/2022 registered by the Yeshwanthapura Police Station for offences under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband subjecting woman to cruelty), 304B (Dowry death), 302 (Murder), and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (DP Act).

Smt. K.S. Jyothishree, the LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, dismissed the petition, emphasizing the serious and heinous nature of the allegations and the ongoing investigation, which included the recording of an alleged voluntary confession by the petitioner.

The Allegations: Dowry Harassment, Cruelty, and Murder

The case involves the death of Lakshmidevi, who was legally married to Accused No. 1, the petitioner’s brother, about five years prior in Pavagada. At the time of marriage, the deceased’s family allegedly gave gold ornaments, a watch, and Rs. 50,000/- cash as dowry.

The complaint, filed by Lakshmidevi’s brother, detailed a history of cruelty and harassment. After moving to Mohankumarnagar, Yeshwanthapur, the husband (Accused No. 1) allegedly began harassing Lakshmidevi, demanding additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- and a gold bracelet. Furthermore, Accused No. 1 was accused of developing an illicit relationship and neglecting his wife. The complaint also included allegations against the petitioner (Gangadhar) and the sister-in-law, Aruna, for their involvement in the ongoing harassment and cruelty.

Timeline of the Final Events

The complaint outlines a chilling sequence of events leading up to Lakshmidevi’s death:

• June 3, 2022 (6:00 PM): Lakshmidevi called her brother (the complainant) over the phone, alleging that her husband, the petitioner (Gangadhar), and the sister-in-law (Aruna) were jointly harassing her, treating her with cruelty, and demanding dowry money. The complainant advised her to come back to his house.
• June 4, 2022 (2:00 AM): The complainant called the petitioner, who informed him that his sister (Lakshmidevi) was unwell.
• June 4, 2022 (6:00 AM): The petitioner informed the complainant that his sister was dead.

Upon immediately visiting the house of Accused No. 1, the complainant observed visible injuries on his sister’s neck and the right side of her face, strongly suggesting foul play. The complainant inquired with the parents of Accused No. 1, who stated they were unaware of the details and that Accused No. 1 and the petitioner had brought the dead body and subsequently disappeared. The complaint alleges that the accused persons, acting with a common intention, committed the murder of the complainant’s sister and then laid the dead body in front of Accused No. 1’s house.

Petitioner’s Defense

The petitioner, Gangadhar, S/o Ramappa, sought anticipatory bail on the following grounds:

• He is innocent and had no connection to the alleged crime.
• He is employed with BWSSB and resides with his wife, denying he was present at Buddhireddyhalli on the dates of the incident.
• He claimed that neither the deceased nor the complainant had made any prior allegations of dowry harassment during Lakshmidevi’s lifetime.
• He expressed readiness to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The Court’s Ruling and Rationale

The learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail, filing objections with the case diary (C.D.) and reiterating the severe nature of the offences, specifically citing the inclusion of IPC Sections 304B (Dowry Death), 302 (Murder), and 201 (Destruction of Evidence). The prosecutor argued that granting bail would lead to the petitioner threatening witnesses and absconding.

In its detailed reasoning, the court acknowledged the gravity of the charges. The I.O.’s report confirmed that investigations were underway, including the conducting of mahazar, recording of witness statements, and the seizure of incriminating materials.

Most significantly, the I.O.’s report disclosed that a voluntary statement of the petitioner had been recorded, wherein he allegedly admitted his guilt. While the court noted that it was not the stage to fully weigh the value of the alleged confession, the existence of such a statement, combined with the nature of the primary offences (murder and dowry death, both heinous crimes), heavily influenced the decision.

The court concluded that the matter was still under investigation and that the inclusion of Sections 302 and 201 of IPC indicated the seriousness of the police’s findings. Given the nature and gravity of the case, the court held that releasing the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this stage would pose a high risk of him tampering with witnesses and attempting to flee the court’s jurisdiction.

Answering Point No. 1 in the Negative, the court ruled that it was not proper to grant anticipatory bail.

The Concluding Order

In view of the findings, the LXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge passed the final order: The bail petition filed by the petitioner, Gangadhar, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. The order necessitates that the petitioner must surrender to the police and seek regular bail after arrest, thereby ensuring his participation in the ongoing investigation into the alleged dowry murder.