Full Judgment
Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.
1. Petitioner has sought for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 160 of 2008 of Tilakwadi Police Station for the offence under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Complaint came to be filed by the father of the deceased stating that the marriage of the petitioner had taken place with the deceased Deepa on 5-6-2006 at Belgaum. At the time of marriage, gold and other articles were given and also marriage expenses were borne by the complainant. After marriage, the deceased went to lead marital life. After some time, it is alleged that her mother-in-law and husband started harassing for petty reasons. When she visited her parental house and complained of the same, she was advised. It is alleged, since his son-in-law/petitioner intended to open a hospital, petitioner and his mother demanded Rs. 10 lakhs financial assistance and in this regard, Rs. 2,50,000/- was given and the complainant had agreed to pay the balance. In between when the complainant went to his daughter's house on 4-11-2008, in his presence also the petitioner abused his daughter for which the complainant told the petitioner that they would pay the remaining balance. Thereafter, on the next date 5-11-2008, Deepa telephoned her sister stating that her husband is assaulting her. Thereafter, within ten minutes, complainant was informed that Deepa had committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan in the room by bolting the door from inside. On the complaint filed before the police, a case came to be registered. Hence, this petition.
3. According to the petitioner, he is innocent of the alleged offence. He has been falsely implicated in the case and the deceased who was also a doctor, was practicing in the clinic. It is farther stated, the ingredients of the offence under Section 304B is not attracted. A false complaint has been filed against the petitioner and no such complaint is filed prior to alleging harassment. Petitioner is a dentist. The deceased as well as the petitioner were initially running a clinic at Sankeshwar for about six months. They were also practising at Belgaum and had purchased a flat in the name of the deceased Deepa herself. The relationship of the petitioner with the deceased was cordial and there was no occasion to ill-treat her. The deceased herself was suffering from ailment and taking treatment by one Dr. Waghmore and she never used to disclose her problem even though asked. There was a child of l 1/2 years to be looked after. Accordingly, he has sought for bail.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention has relied upon a decision in the case of Parveen Malhotra v. State : 1990 Cri. L.J. 1977 and contended that the death of the deceased was suicidal. Under Section 439(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 the nature and gravity of the offence, position and status of the accused and the likelihood of fleeing from justice is to be looked into. The cumulative effect of the circumstances has to be looked into and the husband could be enlarged on bail in a bride burning case wherein in the said case, there was no preplan hatched by the accused and the death occurred on the spur of the moment.
5. Learned Counsel has also relied upon the decision in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar : AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1980)1 SCC 81 : 1979 Cri. L.J. 1036 (SC), to contend that the petitioner is entitled for bail and as to what are the grounds to be considered for grant of bail.
6. Learned Counsel has also relied on the decision in the case of Atul Rao v. State of Karnataka 2008(4) KCCR 2580, to contend that requirement of bail is only to secure the attendance of the accused for trial and bail is not to be withheld as a measure of punishment.
7. In the instant case, petitioner is said to be a doctor by profession and the deceased was also a doctor. According to the petitioner, both of them were practising together at Belgaum and at Sankeshwar and also a flat was purchased in the name of the deceased. Further, according to him, the deceased was suffering from ailment for which she was taking treatment from one Dr. Waghmore.
8. However, according to the prosecution, for about 3 to 4 months, the deceased and the petitioner were living happily and later, for opening a clinic some amount is said to have been demanded and in this regard, harassment is said to have been meted out to the deceased by the petitioner. The deceased committed suicide by hanging to a ceiling fan after bolting the room from inside. There is also a child born to them.
9. In the circumstances, without expressing any opinion, having regard to the status of the petitioner i.e., he is a doctor by profession, and also there is a child aged l 1/2 years, his likelihood of absconding is remote. However, his case could be considered for grant of bail after filing of the final report, if not already filed.
10. Accordingly, petitioner be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties for the said sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to following conditions.-
Petitioner shall make himself available to the investigating agency as and when required.
He shall not tamper with the witnesses.
He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. until further orders.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.