MANJUNATHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner -accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No. 228/2013. Subsequently, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner -accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent -State.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that there is an allegation that the petitioner has not at all provided household things to the deceased. The learned Counsel draws the attention of this Court to the Mahazar and submitted that about the articles found in the house at the time of drawing mahazar itself go to show that the petitioner provided every thing to the deceased and she was leading happy marital life with the petitioner in his house. Hence, there is false implication of the petitioner in the alleged offence. Investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. He submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail. In support of his contention, the kerned Counsel has relied upon two decisions in case of Modinsab Kasimsab Kanchagar Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in : 2013 Crl.L.J. 2056 and Jasvinder Saini and others Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) reported in : 2013 (3) SCC (Crl.) 295. Hence, the learned Counsel submitted to allow the petition.