Sri.Muddana Venkata Ramesh vs State By Mahadevapura Police ...

on 21 August, 2019

Karnataka High Court

Sri.Muddana Venkata Ramesh vs State By Mahadevapura Police ... on 21 August, 2019
Author: B.A.Patil
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5094/2019

BETWEEN:

Sri Muddana Venkata Ramesh

S/o Satyanarayana
Aged about 32 years
No.171, 5th Main, B.Narayanapura,
Bengaluru-36.
...Petitioner
(By Sri J.R.Shanthala, Advocate)

AND:

State by Mahadevapura Police Station

Represented by State Public Prosecutor
High Court Building
Bengaluru-560 001.
...Respondent
(By Sri M.Divakar Maddur, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.167/2018 (C.C.No.53917/2019) of Mahadevapura
Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A and 304B r/w. Section 34 of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,

the Court made the following:-
-2-

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to
enlarge him on bail in Crime No.167/2018 (S.C.No.1152/2019) of Mahadevapura Police Station for
the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 304(B) r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/81352838/ 1

 Sri.Muddana Venkata Ramesh vs State By Mahadevapura Police ... on 21 August, 2019

also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and the learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that the daughter of complainant, viz., Tulasi
Mahalakshmi was given in marriage to Muddanna Venkata Ramesh (accused No.1) on 16.03.2017
and subsequently, on 19.01.2018, she committed suicide by hanging herself in the house of her
husband and in the light of the same, a complaint was registered in UDR No.15/2018. Thereafter,
the father of deceased filed a complaint alleging that deceased committed suicide because of the
ill-treatment and harassment caused by the accused persons for demand of dowry. On the basis of
the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.167/2018 for the above said offences.

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 that the marriage of the
deceased and the petitioner/accused took place on 16.3.2017 and thereafter they shifted to
Bengaluru and at the time when they shifted to Bengaluru, the jewellary which was given in the
marriage has been taken over by the parents of the deceased. It is her further submission that the
alleged incident has taken place on 19.1.2018 and at the time when the Tahasildar recorded the
statement of Vinayaka- the brother of the deceased, he has categorically stated in his statement
before the Tahasildar that the petitioner/accused and the deceased were residing cordially and
deceased sister used to call him every day over the phone and they were happily leading the life and
petitioner/accused was also look after well and she has been put for IT training. He has also stated
that because of frustration she has committed suicide without telling to the husband of the deceased
and they are not suspecting anybody and they requested to give the dead body after post mortem
and thereafter they conducted the last rituals and the complaint has been registered only on
22.2.2018. It is her further submission that when UDR case was registered there was no allegation
of either demand of dowry or any gold, but subsequently after deliberation and discussion a false
complaint has been registered. It is her further submission that earlier the petitioner/accused has
approached this Court for release him on bail, but this Court has given a liberty to file a fresh bail
application after the charge sheet is filed. Now the charge sheet has been filed and all the material
which has been collected is made available and in the said material there is no allegation as against
the petitioner/accused for having demanded the dowry. He is ready to abide by the conditions to be
imposed by this Court and ready to offer the sureties. On these grounds she prayed to allow the
petition and to release the petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that
the complainant is the father of the deceased, in his statement he has specifically made the
allegation that prior to the marriage there was a demand and in pursuance of the same he has given
huge gold and cash and thereafter there was ill-treatment and harassment caused by the
petitioner/accused and the deceased has committed suicide by hanging in the house of the
petitioner/accused and the petitioner/accused has not given any explanation as contemplated under
Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It is his further submission that there is a presumption that if the
death takes place within seven years after the marriage, it is presumed to be a dowry death. He
further submitted that the petitioner/accused was absconding and subsequently he was surrendered

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/81352838/ 2

 Sri.Muddana Venkata Ramesh vs State By Mahadevapura Police ... on 21 August, 2019

before the Court. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing for the parties and perused the records.

7. On close reading of the charge sheet material, the statement of Vinayaka- the brother of the
deceased has been recorded on 22.2.2018 and therein he has stated that the petitioner/accused and
the deceased are living cordially and every day she used to call and they were living happily and she
also used to inform that the petitioner/accused is also looking after well and he has put her for IT
training and she is going for the training and he has also further stated that he is not suspecting
anybody. Even the records also indicate the fact that the deceased died due to frustration and the
post mortem report also supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused.

8. Though it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the presumption is
there under the law and the accused has not come up with any explanation as contemplated under
Section 106 of the Evidence Act, even the statement of the brother of the deceased itself goes to
show that she was prejudiced because of pressure of work and as such she has committed suicide
and as on the date of the alleged incident the petitioner/accused was also not present in the house.
Under the said facts and circumstances that too when already charge sheet has been filed, I feel that
by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail, it
is going to meet the ends of justice.

9. In the light of the discussions held by me above, the petition is allowed and petitioner/accused
No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.167/2018(SC No.1152/2019) of Mahadevapura
police station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees
Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial
Court..

ii) He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.

iii) He shall mark his attendance in the jurisdictional police once in a month on every
first between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. till the trial is concluded.

iv) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

Sd/-

JUDGE *AP/-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/81352838/ 3