SUNIL JAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 praying this Court to release the petitioner/accused on bail in Crime No.24/2018 of Town Police Station, Tiptur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC and also under section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the marriage of deceased was performed on 22.07.2015 and there was no demand of dowry and as per the contents of the complaint filed by the mother of the deceased, for silly reasons the petitioner/accused used to quarrel with the deceased. On 14.02.2018, there was delay while cooking food and the same was informed by the deceased and the complainant spoke to the petitioner/accused and to his father to console the deceased and accordingly, the petitioner/accused consoled her and on 20.02.2018 for silly reasons, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. There is no material to attract the provisions of Section 304B of IPC and also section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Further it is submitted that the petitioner and deceased lived happily and there was no physical or mental torture for demand of any dowry. It is further submitted that already the chargesheet is filed and accused No.2 has been released on bail, no useful purpose is going to be served if the accused/petitioner is continued in judicial custody. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued by contending that though no such allegations are made regarding demand of dowry in the complaint but subsequently, the statement of mother of the deceased stated before the police indicates that there was demand for dowry, ill-treatment and harassment caused by accused persons. He further submitted that there is prima-facie material as against the petitioner/ accused and if the petitioner/accused is released on bail, there is likelihood of he tampering with the prosecution witnesses and he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.