VENKATESHALU NAIDU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the Respondent-State. Perused the records.

(2.) The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Crl.P.No.4796/2019 for grant of anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in connection with Crime No.142 of 2019 on the file of the Respondent-Madivala Police. This Court had rejected the said bail petition vide order dated 25.09.2019 as the investigation was not completed by that time. Presently, the charge-sheet is filed and the petitioner was arrested on 27.10.2019 and since then, he has been in judicial custody.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case are that, the deceased Smt.Neelavathi was given in marriage to the present petitioner on 01.06.2017. It is alleged that at the time of the marriage, some gold and silver articles and cash of Rs.80,000/- were given in consideration of the marriage. After the marriage, accused Nos.2 and 3 were demanding Rs.50 Lakhs from her towards the consideration of the marriage as dowry. In this context, the accused persons were ill-treating and harassing her. It is also the case of the prosecution itself that since eight months prior to the date of incident, the petitioner and his wife were not living together. She was actually kept in P.G. and even after that, they were not able to pull on the marital life with each other. Therefore, divorce notice was issued to her and divorce petition was also filed before the jurisdictional Court. It is contended that, being frustrated in life, the deceased committed suicide in a hotel room leaving a death note in detail stating the circumstances prevailed upon her to commit suicide. A careful perusal of the death note reveals that, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner with regard to demand of dowry by him. On the other hand, the alleged demand was by the accused Nos.2 and 3. Of course it is alleged that, he was always a silent spectator even whenever, in his presence, accused Nos. 2 and 3 were ill-treating and harassing the deceased. Therefore, it is stated that the deceased was frustrated in life and committed suicide.