"..There is no allegation regarding the demand of dowry and other ill-treatment. Usually, elders in the family used to advice the members of the family how to behave and not to spend much time over the mobile, which itself does not constitute ill-treatment or abuse as defined under Section 498A of IPC. ...."
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
Karnataka High Court
Thotesh Gouda @ T C Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 May, 2014
Author: B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2118 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. THOTESH GOUDA @ T.C.PATIL S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
2. CHANDRASHEKAR GOUDA, S/O. LATE NANDIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. CHANDRAMMA, W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT SOGILU VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001 ; ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI:CHANDRAMOULI H.S., ADVOCATE) AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE POLICE OF, NYAMATHI POLICE STATION, HONNALI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001; ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI:K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.48/2014 OF HONNALI P.S., DAVANAGERE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking for release on bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Cr.No.48/2014 registered by Nyamathi police, Honnali Taluk, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Nethra is the wife of Thotesh Gouda - petitioner No.1, after their marriage they lived at Sogilu Village and they lead a happy marital life. On 06.03.2014, she was brought to the hospital stating that she tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and lit fire herself and sustained grievous burnt injuries. In the hospital, her statement was recorded. On the basis of the said statement, the present case has been registered under Section 498A. After her death, Section 306 of IPC was added. On the basis of registration of the case, the police were intended to arrest the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners approached the II Additional Sessions Judge, Davanagere, seeking for anticipatory bail. The said application was rejected by the Court below on 02.04.2014. Hence, the petitioners have filed this petition seeking for anticipatory bail. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 is the husband of the deceased Nethra and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of accused No.1. The petitioners contended that they have not involved in any of the offences punishable under Section 498A. There is no allegation with regard to demand of dowry. Except the statement of the deceased, no other materials are available in the record. In her statement, she has not alleged about the ill-treatment or demand of dowry, which falls under Section 498A. Hence, invoking of Section 498A is contrary to law.
4. Further, in her dying declaration, the deceased herself admitted that after the marriage, she was living happily in the marital house. Due to the short tamper, she has committed suicide by pouring kerosene by litting fire by herself. In that background, the petitioners cannot be punished. Whereas, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the aged parents of petitioner No.1. Hence, sought for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, the Government Advocate appearing for the respondent opposed for grant of anticipatory bail and contended that in the dying declaration, the deceased Nethra made a statement that the father-in-law repeatedly abusing her for talking over the mobile phone and this statement falls under Section 498A. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for the anticipatory bail and sought for rejection of the petition. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
6. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the Court below and other relevant record.
7. The deceased in her statement has admitted that she herself poured kerosene on her body and lit fire herself. The reason assigned is that her father-in-law was abusing her for talking over the mobile phone. There is no allegation regarding the demand of dowry and other ill-treatment. Usually, elders in the family used to advice the members of the family how to behave and not to spend much time over the mobile, which itself does not constitute ill-treatment or abuse as defined under Section 498A of IPC. There is no specific allegation with regard to the ill-treatment by the husband as well as the mother-in-law except alleging that father-in-law used to abuse her for spending much time in the mobile phone. Whether, the petitioners have instigated the deceased to commit suicide is to be examined during the course of trial. The petitioners are the permanent residents of Honnali Taluk. There is no question of tampering any prosecution witnesses or influence the prosecution witnesses. Hence I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER
The petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.48/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC, on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each, with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to following conditions:
1. The petitioners shall appear before the Court regularly.
2. The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witness.
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
3. The petitioners shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer during the Course of Investigation.
4. The petitioners shall not leave the limits of the Davanagere City without prior permission from the Jurisdictional Court. [
Sd/-
JUDGE
HJ*
*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon. Some notes are made by Vinayak. This is a free service provided by Vinayak (pen name). Vinayak is a member of SIF - Save Indian Family Foundation. SIF is committed to fighting FALSE dowry cases and elder abuse. SIF supports gender equality and a fair treatment of law abiding Indian men. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog or write to e _ vinayak @ yahoo . com (please remove spaces). Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
******************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE
******************************************************************
http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment