Karnataka High Court
Yallanagouda vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 19 December, 2023
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
CRL.P No. 201437 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201437 OF 2023 (439)
BETWEEN:
SRI. YALLANAGOUDA
S/O DEVENDRAPPA METI
AGE: 29 YEARS OCC: DRIVER
R/O: BILEBHAVI VILLAGE
TQ. TALIKOTI DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI, TALIKOTI POLICE STATION,
Digitally
signed by DIST. VIJAYPUR
KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN REPRESENTED BY ITS
Location: High ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE
Court Of GENERAL'S OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING
Karnataka
KALABURAGI-585103.
2. SMT. NAGAVVA GURIKAR
W/O ESHAPPA GURIKAR
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: CHAVANABHAVI
NOW RESIDING AT DONKAMADU
TQ. MUDDEBIHAL DIST. VIJAYPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHADEV S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
CRL.P No. 201437 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE HIM ON BAIL IN TALIKOTI
P.S. DIST. VIJAYPUR IN CRIME NO.61/2023 REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A),
304(B), 306, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT,
PENDING BEFORE THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
MUDDEBIHAL IN C.C.NO.247/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section
439 of Cr.P.C. for granting bail in Crime No.61/2023,
registered by Talikoti Police Station and charge-sheeted
for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A),
304(B), 306, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
02. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent No.1 - State and the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 - complainant. The learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 has also filed the statement of
objections.
03. The case of the prosecution is that on the
complaint filed by the mother of the deceased - Nagawwa,
the Police have registered the FIR, wherein it is alleged
that her daughter - Shilpa given in marriage with this
petitioner on 20.05.2022. For the six months, they looked
after very well. Thereafter, they started harassing the
deceased in both physically and mentally for demanding
dowry. Especially this petitioner is said to be purchased a
car and he demanded Rs.05,00,000/-. Her father has
given Rs.25,000/- and he has undertake to pay remaining
Rs.25,000/- in some other installment, but not paid.
Therefore, the accused picked up quarrel and he was
harassing the deceased. Due to the said harassment, the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
deceased is said to be committed the suicide in the house
of the accused. The case was registered and the petitioner
was arrested on 16.05.2023 and he was in the judicial
custody. His bail petition was came to be rejected. Hence,
the petitioner is before this Court.
04. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that on perusal of the complaint and
statements of the witnesses, there is no demand of dowry,
at the time of marriage or even after the marriage. The
petitioner was arrested on 16.05.2023. The investigation
is completed and the charge-sheet is also filed 04 months
back. The petitioner is in judicial custody nearly for 07
months. Though, the FIR was registered against the 04
accused persons, the Police have dropped the accused
Nos.2 to 4 in the charge-sheet. The postmortem
examination report reveals that she has committed
suicide. There is no injuries on the part of the body. There
is no allegation or any quarrel between them in respect of
demand of dowry, but the deceased had a intimacy with
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
some other person prior to the marriage and she was
continued even after the marriage. There was a telephonic
talk and messages between them. This aspect came to the
knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner went
to the house of the complainant for making complaint
against the deceased about her illegal intimacy between
some other person. This fact came to the knowledge of the
deceased. Therefore, she has committed suicide.
Absolutely, there is no abatement of commission of suicide
or dowry harassment. Hence, prayed for granting the bail.
05. Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 - complainant has filed a serious
objections contending that there is conversation between
the petitioner and the deceased as well as her family
members. The Investigating Officer purposely dropped the
accused Nos.2 to 4 from the charge-sheet. Even he was
not investigated the matter and no custodial interrogation
made by him. The Investigating Officer has colluded with
the accused persons for helping them. Even prior to the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
charge-sheet, there was a roamer that the Investigating
Officer will drop them from the charge-sheet. Therefore,
the petitioner has approached the learned Magistrate by
filing an application under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. for
seeking further investigation. The same was not
considered by the learned Magistrate and committed the
case to the Court of Session. The petitioner has also
approached the higher Police officers for taking action to
change the Investigating Officer for further investigation,
but they have not taken any action. Therefore, the
respondent No.2 constrained to file a criminal petition
before this Court in Crl.P.No.201343/2023 for directing the
Police to direct the Trial Court to transfer the investigation
to the COD or CID. It is a clear case of murder by the
accused persons. The Investigating Officer, willfully not
filed the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under
Section 302 of IPC and not properly investigated the
matter. Therefore, until the matter is disposed off for
further investigation, the petitioner shall not be granted
bail. If he is granted bail, then he may destroy the
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
evidence and tamper the prosecution witnesses. He has
also contended that there is a audio C.D. taken by the
complainant, where there is a conversation between the
petitioner and the deceased as well as other accused
persons. The Investigating Officer willfully not seized the
C.D. and cell phone of the deceased. The conversation
clearly reveals that the offences committed by the accused
persons. He has further contended that the statements of
witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, which was
videographed, but the statements made before the Court
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. is altogether different, which
is not matches to each other. Therefore, the petitioner is a
influenced person, if he is granted bail, he may tamper the
prosecution witnesses. He has contended that in a similar
case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonu vs.
Sonu Yadav and others, cancel the bail granted by the
High Court in Crl.A.No.377/2021 dated 05.04.2021.
Hence, prayed for rejecting the bail petition.
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
06. The learned the learned High Court Government
Pleader also seriously objected the bail petition contending
that the petitioner has committed the heinous offences, he
should not be granted bail. Hence, prayed for rejecting the
bail petition.
07. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of
the records it reveals that of course the FIR was registered
against four accused persons, where there was a demand
of dowry of Rs.05,00,000/- by the accused after the
marriage for the purpose of purchasing the car. The
marriage was took place on 20.05.2022 and the death was
took placed on 14.05.2023, even without completion of
one year of their marriage. Though, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has contended that there was whats app
messages to show that the deceased is having illicit
intimacy with the former lover, prior to their marriage and
continued and he has produced some of the clippings. The
facts remains that on 14.05.2023 the accused - petitioner
came to the house of the deceased, and abused the family
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
members of the deceased in filthy language and said to be
told that they should come to the village for giving
memorandum, otherwise he will divorce her. Immediately,
after one hour 45 minutes, he came to know that the
deceased was died in the house. The Police investigated
the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The postmortem
examination report reveals that the death was due to
hanging. However, he has not obtained the further opinion
by the Investigating Officer, whether it is suicide hanging
or homicidal hanging. Of course the investigation is
completed and the charge-sheet is also filed. However, the
complainant is not satisfied with the charge-sheet filed by
the Investigating Officer for dropping the accused Nos.2 to
4. It is specific contention that Investigating Officer is
colluded with the accused persons and he has recorded
the statement, which is not produced before the Court, but
he has produced some other statements for helping the
accused. Therefore, a criminal petition is filed before this
Court in Crl.P.No.201343/2023 for directing the further
investigate the matter by either COD or CID. Normally, in
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
a case the dowry that the deceased died within one year of
the marriage the anti dowry cell of COD should investigate
the matter. But here the regular Police have investigated
the matter and filed the charge-sheet. Some of the
witnesses statements viz., Giriyappa, Amresh and
Vishwanath, wherein they are given negative statements
that is in favour of the petitioner and other accused
persons. Therefore, it is not ruled out that the
Investigating Officer is colluded with the accused, dropping
the other accused persons from the charge-sheet. The
offences are very heinous in nature. The deceased was
died in the house of the accused within one year from the
date of marriage.
08. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Crl.A.No.377/2021 in the case of Sonu v. Sonu Yadav
and another in a similar case it is held that the marriage
was held on 05.07.2018 and the deceased was died on
08.02.2019 within a year of marriage. There is specific
allegation in the FIR about demand of dowry as well as on
phone call being received from the accused in close
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
proximity to the death of the sister of the appellant when
a demand for additional amounts of money was made. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court by relying upon the earlier
judgment in the case of Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna
alias Munna Jaiswal, reported in 1 SCC 678,, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted by the
Allahabad High Court on 01.12.2020 and directed the
accused to surrender forthwith.
09. Here in this case, the complainant has also
produced the C.D. and also filed application for seeking
further investigation by the CID or COD. Such being the
case, I am of the view that if the petitioner is granted bail
at this stage, there is every possibility for tampering the
prosecution witnesses and obstruction in the investigation
is not ruled out. Now the charge-sheet is filed.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for
bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-K:9291
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner is hereby
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KJJ
