NANJAIAH Vs. STATE BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the petition filed by the petitioners - accused Nos. 2 & 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304 -B r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 393/2013 and subsequently filed the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 114, 304 -B and 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The brief facts of the prosecution case that one - Jayendra lodged the complaint alleging that his daughter Parvathi was given in marriage to accused No. 1 who is none other than the son of the petitioners and marriage was celebrated on 05 -05 -2013. At the time of marriage he gave 100 grams of gold and a cash of Rs. 50,000/ - to accused No. 1 and performed the marriage as per their customs. After the marriage, Parvathi joined the accused No. 1 in the matrimonial house and accused No. 1 started harassing her both physically and mentally for dowry and since no dowry was paid accused persons on 06 -11 -2013 at about 5.30 p.m. committed the murder of his daughter Parvathi in the matrimonial house. It is alleged that because of the harassment of the accused persons for dowry and as it was not fulfilled, Parvathi was murdered. It is also alleged that accused No. 4 - Bhagyamma who was negotiator on behalf of accused No. 1 for the marriage of his daughter with the accused No. 1, had illicit relationship with accused No. 1 and with that background murder has been committed. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered against the petitioners and other two accused persons.

(2.) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners - accused Nos. 2 and 3 and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

(3.) AS against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that perusing the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation particularly the mother and brother of the deceased have clearly mentioned in their statement about the ill -treatment given by the accused persons to the deceased insisting her to bring the dowry amount. He made the submission that even at the time of marriage also 100 grams of gold and cash of Rs. 50,000/ - was given to accused No. 1 and even then accused No. 1 and members of his family were not satisfied and they started giving ill -treatment to the deceased and ultimately they have committed the murder of the deceased when she was staying in her husband's place. Hence, he submitted that there is a prima -facie material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the present petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. Perusing the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation, as it is rightly submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that they have clearly stated about the ill -treatment given by the husband and the present petitioners to the deceased - Parvathi insisting her to bring more dowry amount from her parental place. The materials collected during investigation also goes to show the involvement of the present petitioners in the commission of the alleged offences. The incident took place within a span of six months from the date of marriage of the deceased with accused No. 1 and death also happened when she was living in the matrimonial home. So looking to the entire materials on record, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners along with other accused committed the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, the petitioners are also involved in the commission of the alleged offences. However, so far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, she is a women of age 54 years and this age of the petitioner No. 2 is not disputed even by the other side, because even in the records prepared by the police, her age is mentioned as 54 years. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that she is a women and having age of 54 years, therefore, considering this aspect so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, she can be admitted to bail by imposing some stringent conditions, because the investigation is already completed and charge sheet has been filed. Petitioner No. 1 is not entitled to be granted with bail. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part, so far as petitioner No. 2 - Smt. Vimala is concerned and it is rejected so far as petitioner No. 1 -Sri. Nanjaiah is concerned. Smt. Vimala - petitioner No. 2 is ordered to 'be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304 -B r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent - police in Crime No. 393/2013 and subsequently filed the charge sheet for the offences under Sections 114, 304 -B and 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions: