VEERESH GOUDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner is accused for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 114, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 apart from Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is alleged that the petitioner was the husband of one Sunita and it is alleged that they were married about two years prior to the incident. Though at the time of marriage the petitioner had been provided with cash and gold, immediately thereafter, the family of the petitioner and the petitioner started ill-treating Sunita and asked her to get more dowry from her parents' house and consequently tortured her, both physically and mentally. The deceased was actively instigated by other accused and they were also taunting her that she was not good looking and was unable to bear children and it is stated that on account of which the victim had consumed pesticide and died on 05.07.2012. On the basis of the statements of several witnesses that a case has been instituted against the petitioner and others. The Court below had granted anticipatory bail in respect of accused Nos.3 and 5 and this Court has granted bail in respect of two others. The petitioner who had approached this Court earlier, withdrew the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition after the charge sheet was filed. The charge sheet is now been filed and that the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations against all the accused are identical. In that, on account of constant harassment and instigation the victim committed suicide. There are no direct witnesses in respect of any alleged physical and mental ill- treatment, except the statement of the witnesses, which is to be established at the trial. Since the other accused have been granted bail, notwithstanding that the allegations were common, by a parity of reasoning, the petitioner also claims to be entitled to bail.

(3.) HOWEVER , the strict rule that if the wife has died within 7 years of marriage of an unnatural death, that there should be a presumption against the accused, being strictly applied in all given cases may result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, in the absence of any direct evidence of ill-treatment and mental and physical harassment, the petitioner being detained in custody may result in miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail.