Prasanna Kumar vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 7580 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1803/2022

BETWEEN:

PRASANNA KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O A.B. KRISHNAPPA,
R/AT NO.764 /10,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
ATTIBELE TOLEGATE,
ATTIBELE BORDER,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 107.                             ... PETITIONER

            (BY MS. RABIYA KHANUM L., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
BASAVANAGUDI WOMENS POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU-560 004.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGLAURU-560 001.                          ... RESPONDENT

                  (BY SRI M. PARTHA, SPP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ORDER AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.22/2022
REGISTERED BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
498A, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF
                                       2



DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                                  ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his

arrest in respect of Crime No.22/2022 registered by

Basavanagudi Women Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence

punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that this petitioner along with his family members i.e., mother-

in-law, sister-in-law and brothers of husband of the victim

subjected her for both mental any physical harassment. It is

also her allegation that her marriage was solemnized in 2019

and the marriage was performed as per their demand by

spending an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for engagement and Rs.60

lakhs for performing the marriage. Immediately after the

marriage, she joined the matrimonial home. For some time she

was looked after very well and thereafter they started to harass

her and demanded additional amount of Rs.5 lakhs and in the

meanwhile, she became pregnant and gave birth to a girl child

on 18.09.2020 and again they started abusing her telling that

she gave birth a girl child. That on 15.08.2021, as per the

demand of the petitioner and their family members, they spent

an amount of Rs.3 lakhs for naming ceremony and when the

harassment was continued, she made an attempt to commit

suicide by consuming the tablet and immediately she was shifted

to NR Hospital, Attibele, wherein she was provided treatment for

one day and discharged and she was sent to her parental house.

On 03.10.2021, her brother and sister-in-law accompanied her

to leave her in the matrimonial home and at that time also they

made galata and when they tried to make assault, they went and

lodged complaint with Attibele Police Station and subsequently

on giving an undertaking that they will look after her very well,

the complaint was withdrawn. Inspite of the same, they

continued the harassment and they have videographed handing

over her all gold ornaments and that on 23.12.2021, again

assaulted and abused her and this petitioner fisted on her face

and snatched her mobile and she was driven out of the house

and panchayat was held and on 26.12.2021, her family members

again left her in the matrimonial home. In the presence of her

family members also assaulted her and insisted to make a house

at Bangalore and her brother pledged gold articles on

31.12.2021 and gave an amount of Rs.1 lakh to make the house

and inspite of it also they continued the harassment. Her

husband after making separate residence looked after her very

well only for two days and suppressing the truth, filed petition

for divorce and hence without any other alternative, complaint is

filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that only false allegations are made against this petitioner. Even

though allegation is made that the petitioner did not look after

her well, the petitioner had spent the amount for her and her

child and no harassment was meted out to her and the offences

are also not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life

and hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. Per contra, the learned SPP appearing for the

respondent-State would submit that the complaint averment is

very specific that immediately after the marriage she was

subjected to dowry harassment and she consumed tablet to

commit suicide and she was taken to the hospital. Even an

amount of Rs.1 lakh was given pledging the gold ornaments to

make separate residence and inspite of it also, subjected her for

harassment.

6. Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

on perusal of the material available on record, the allegations

made in the complaint is that they demanded an amount of Rs.5

lakhs immediately after the marriage. The complaint discloses

that she also made an attempt to end her life and apart from

that, when she was taken to the matrimonial home along with

her family members, an allegation is made that they assaulted

and abused and hence complaint was given with Attibele police

and subsequently on compromise, the same was withdrawn. An

allegation is also made that they pledged the gold ornaments

and gave an amount of Rs.1 lakh to make separate residence

and inspite of it, they continued the harassment. When there is

a specific allegation against this petitioner, matter has to be

probed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

other accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. On

the ground of parity also, the petitioner is entitled for bail. The

Apex Court in the judgment in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN

RATHOD v. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI)

AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 has held that

while applying the principle of parity, the Court cannot exercise

its powers in a capricious manner and has to consider totality of

circumstances before granting bail. Parity while granting bail

must focus upon role of the accused, and not only on weapon

carried by accused. Merely observing that another accused who

was granted bail was armed with similar weapon is not sufficient

to determine whether bail can be granted on the basis of parity.

In deciding aspect of parity, role attached to the accused, their

position in relation to the incident and to victims is of utmost

importance.

7. In the case on hand, the petitioner is the husband

and no doubt, the other family members have been enlarged on

bail. While exercising the parity, the Court has to take note of

the role of the petitioner and here is a case of subjecting the

victim for assault. Earlier complaint was given and subsequently

complaint was withdrawn. The victim also made an attempt to

end her life by consuming the tablet and she was taken to the

hospital and she was inpatient and thereafter she was

discharged. An allegation is made that the brother of the victim

pledged the gold ornaments and handed over an amount of Rs.1

lakh to make a separate house. When such specific allegations

are made and prima facie material is alleged against the

petitioner, it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner to enlarge him

on bail.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD