MR. PRABHAKAR @ UDAY Vs. STATE BY SHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 under section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 praying to release him on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 of IPC also under sections 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.513/2017 of Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.

(2.) I have heard Sri.P.Nehru, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.P.Yoganna, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

(3.) The genesis of the case of the prosecution are that petitioner-accused No.1 and the deceased Nethra fell in love with each other and the mother of deceased after coming to know the said fact, she arranged the marriage and thereafter they started to reside near Prasanna Bar and Restaurant. Out of the said wed lock the deceased gave birth to a female child and subsequently the deceased informed the complainant that her husband wanted to do hotel business and as such the complainant had to give Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and as per the request the said amount was given, but the petitioner-accused No.1 had not started any such business and subsequently, to buy an auto he further demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only), the said amount was paid and it was lavishly spent, as he was addicted to alcohol and other habits and thereafter again the petitioner-accused No.1 demanded Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) to start vegetable business and the complainant gave the demanded amount and that was also spent. Thereafter the petitioner's mother and other family members started to ill-treat and harass the deceased for dowry. On 20.10.2017, at about 9.30 p.m., the brother of the petitioner-accused No.1 phoned to the son of the complainant and informed that his sister Nethra, while having the dinner she had vomited blood and they took her to hospital and immediately the complainant went to Sagar Hospital, by that time, the complainant went there he saw his daughter was already dead. After suspecting that the deceased died due to ill-treatment and harassment caused by the petitioner-accused No.1, a complaint was registered.