BENGALURU, SEPTEMBER 15, 2023 – The LXXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, has delivered a split verdict on an application for anticipatory bail filed by three petitioners in connection with a dowry death case. The court, presided over by Sri. SANTHOSH C.B, rejected the pre-arrest bail plea for the primary accused, Bettaswamy Gowda (Accused No. 1 and husband), but granted conditional bail to his two sister-in-laws, Manjula R.C (Accused No. 2) and Anitha (Accused No. 3).
The case stems from Jnanabharathi Police Station Crime No. 261/2023, registered for offenses punishable under Sections 498A (Cruelty by husband or relatives), 304B (Dowry death) read with 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case and Allegations
The deceased, Smt. Pushpalatha, was the legally wedded wife of Petitioner No. 1, Bettaswamy Gowda, with their marriage solemnized on November 24, 2018. According to the complaint, at the time of marriage, the deceased’s parents gave 150 grams of gold ornaments and Rs. 20,000/- cash as dowry. The couple resided in Shriram Layout, Jnanabharathi, Bengaluru, and had a baby girl named Tharunya.
The gist of the complaint is that since the date of marriage, the deceased frequently informed her parents about harassment by the accused persons. Crucially, it is alleged that Bettaswamy Gowda used to suspect his wife’s character and repeatedly demanded she bring more dowry from her parental house. The tragic incident occurred on August 10, 2023, around 7:00 p.m., when the complainant (the deceased’s relative/parent) received a phone call stating that their daughter had committed suicide.
Based on these allegations, the Jnanabharathi Police registered the crime, prompting the three accused to seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., apprehending their imminent arrest.
Arguments Presented to the Court
The counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Suresha N.S, argued that the petitioners were innocent and falsely implicated solely to harass them. The counsel presented a counter-narrative, suggesting that the only issue was the deceased using a mobile phone without the knowledge of Petitioner No. 1, for which she had promised not to repeat. A key contention raised was the existence of a consent deed dated August 18, 2023. This document purportedly showed that Petitioner No. 2 (Manjula R.C) had agreed to gift her self-acquired property to the deceased’s minor child, Tharunya, in exchange for the complainant agreeing to withdraw the case within three months. This suggested a monetary settlement attempt and the innocence of the petitioners.
Conversely, the learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the petition, asserting that the offenses, particularly Section 304B (Dowry Death), are heinous. The prosecution argued that the accused persons mentally and physically harassed the deceased, driving her to commit suicide, and that prima facie materials confirmed the harassment, as narrated by the deceased to her parents. Given that the investigation was still active, the rejection of bail was sought to prevent tampering with evidence and witnesses. The court also allowed the complainant to be represented by counsel Sri. HRS under Section 301(2) of Cr.P.C. to assist the prosecution, who cited the Supreme Court decision in Samundar Singh vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (AIR 1987 SC 737), which cautions against granting anticipatory bail in dowry death cases.
Court’s Decision: Separate Treatment for Accused
In analyzing the arguments and the materials on record, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense under Section 304B of the IPC. The Judge noted that the complaint and other materials prima facie disclose a strong case against Accused No. 1, Bettaswamy Gowda, for having harassed the deceased, suspecting her character, and demanding dowry, which drove her to commit suicide.
The court explicitly stated, “Whether the petitioner No.1 is innocent of the offences alleged or not cannot be ascertained at this stage of the case, when the investigation is still under progress.” Citing the serious nature of the allegations against the husband and the ongoing investigation, the court deemed it imprudent to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to Bettaswamy Gowda. His petition was, therefore, rejected.
However, the court took a different view regarding Petitioner No. 2 (Manjula R.C) and Petitioner No. 3 (Anitha), who are the sister-in-laws of the deceased. The order mentioned that they were “staying at their respective houses with their spouses,” suggesting a less direct involvement in the day-to-day harassment leading to the suicide. The Judge concluded that these two petitioners “can be enlarged on bail.” The apprehensions raised by the prosecution regarding these two could be effectively allayed by imposing stringent conditions.
Conditions for Sister-in-Laws
The petition in respect of Manjula R.C and Anitha was allowed, and they were ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest, upon executing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety for the like sum. The key conditions imposed include:
- No Tampering/Threat: They shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the prosecution witnesses in any manner.
- Surrender and Bond Execution: They must surrender before the jurisdictional court/investigating officer within 15 days from the date of the order and execute the personal bond with a surety without fail.
- Court Appearances: They must appear before the court on all the dates of hearing without fail.
The ruling underscores the gravity with which the court views the offense of dowry death while simultaneously making a distinction between the primary accused (husband) and the collateral accused (in-laws), based on the prima facie material available during the investigation stage. The court’s partial allowance of the petition ensures that the investigation can proceed against the husband without hindrance, while preventing the arrest of the distant relatives, subject to strict judicial compliance.