Bengaluru, June 28, 2022 – A Bengaluru Sessions Court dismissed the bail petition of Smt. Aruna @ Varalakshmi, a key accused in a case involving alleged dowry harassment, murder, and destruction of evidence concerning the death of her sister-in-law, Lakshmidevi. The court, citing the heinous nature and gravity of the offenses, ruled that releasing the petitioner at the ongoing stage of investigation would be detrimental to the proceedings.
The order was passed by Smt. K.S. Jyothishree, the LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-72), in the matter of Crl. Misc. No. 6063/2022. Aruna @ Varalakshmi, represented by Sri Mohan Kumar, had sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in connection with Crime No. 193/2022 registered at Yeshwanthapura Police Station.
Serious Charges Under IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act
The petitioner faces grave charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act, specifically: Sections 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives), 304B (Dowry Death), 302 (Murder), 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence) read with 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.
The prosecution, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail plea by reiterating the serious allegations contained in the complaint and case diary.
Allegations of Dowry Demand and Marital Cruelty
The facts of the case, as detailed in the court’s order, reveal a distressing pattern of harassment leading up to the victim’s death. The deceased, Lakshmidevi, was married to the primary accused (Accused No. 1) approximately five years prior in Pavagada. At the time of marriage, the accused allegedly received dowry, including gold ornaments, a watch, and Rs. 50,000/- cash.
Following the marriage, the couple settled in Bengaluru. However, the deceased’s husband allegedly began harassing her, demanding additional dowry of Rs. 2,00,000/- cash and a gold bracelet. The complaint further alleges that the husband developed an illicit relationship and neglected Lakshmidevi.
About a year before the incident, Lakshmidevi informed her brother (the complainant) about her husband’s cruel attitude and expressed a desire to lodge a police complaint. The complainant advised her to return to her marital home.
The Final Days and Suspicious Death
On June 3, 2022, at around 6:00 PM, Lakshmidevi called her brother and alleged that her husband, his brother Gangadhar, and his sister-in-law, the petitioner Aruna @ Varalakshmi, were jointly harassing her, treating her with cruelty, and demanding dowry. She urgently requested money. The complainant consoled her and asked her to come back to his house.
Tragically, the following day, June 4, 2022, at 2:00 AM, the complainant received a call from Accused No. 2 informing him that his sister was unwell. Just four hours later, at 6:00 AM, Accused No. 2 intimated the complainant that his sister was no more.
Upon reaching the house, the complainant noticed injuries on the neck and right side of his sister’s face, strongly suggesting a violent cause of death. He inquired with the parents of the primary accused, who stated that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had brought the dead body and that they were unaware of their whereabouts. The complaint ultimately alleges that the accused persons, including the petitioner Aruna, acted with a common intention to commit murder and subsequently placed the dead body in front of Accused No. 1’s house.
Court’s Reasoning for Bail Rejection
The petitioner, a housewife with two minor daughters, sought bail by claiming innocence, asserting that her husband was a far relative of Accused No. 1, and maintaining that her husband was on duty when the body was allegedly brought to the house on June 4, 2022.
The court, after hearing arguments and perusing the Case Diary (C.D.), sided with the prosecution. The Sessions Judge noted that the investigation officer (I.O.) had already conducted a mahazar, recorded witness statements, and seized incriminating materials. Most significantly, the I.O.’s objection statement disclosed that the petitioner’s voluntary statement was recorded, wherein she allegedly admitted her guilt.
While acknowledging that the court should not delve into the evidentiary value of a voluntary statement at the bail stage, the judge emphasized the severe nature of the offenses, especially the inclusion of Sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the IPC.
The court concluded: “At this stage, if she is released on bail, she may tamper the witnesses and try to abscond from the jurisdiction of the court. Looking into the nature and gravity of the case, it is not proper to grant bail in favour of the petitioner.”
Consequently, Point No. 1 (whether the petitioner has made out grounds for bail) was answered in the Negative. The bail petition filed by Smt. Aruna @ Varalakshmi under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed, ensuring she remains in judicial custody while the investigation into the alleged murder and dowry death proceeds.