MAHANTESH MUDIMALLAPPA GANIGER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is by accused No.1 seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.74/2023 for the offences punishable under Ss. 498A and 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

(2.) The petitioner/accused No.1 has contended that he is innocent of the offences alleged and that he has been falsely implicated. Admittedly, deceased was staying in her parental home since more than 2 years before the unfortunate incident took place. Petitioner/accused No.1 has filed a petition under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court in M.C.No.168/2022, as the deceased had left the matrimonial home. The provisions of Sec. 306 is not attracted, as the ingredient of Sec. 107 is not fulfilled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ample number of judgments held that the offence under Sec. 306 of IPC would stand only if there is abatement for commission of crime. Though the alleged incident took place on 22/4/2023, the deceased was under treatment for almost 8 days and her statement was not recorded. Only after her death, complaint came to be filed. There are no specific allegation against the petitioner/accused No.1. Since 2018, there were no complaints against the petitioner/accused No.1, except the present case. Petitioner/accused No.1 is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed and prays to allow the petition.

(3.) Learned HCGP filed objections stating that based on the complaint filed by the father of the deceased, case in Crime No.74/2023 is registered against the petitioner/accused No.1 and others for the offences punishable under Ss. 499A and 306 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The complaint reveal that marriage of the deceased Sweta with the petitioner/accused No.1 was performed on 23/3/2018 and at the time of marriage, cash in a sum of Rs.30,000.00, 1 tola of gold and household articles were given as per custom. Deceased was staying in the matrimonial home along with accused Nos.1 to 4.