The Karnataka High Court has sent an Additional District and Sessions Judge of Mysuru, who granted bail to a dowry death accused, to the Judicial Academy for training, so that he could apply judicious thought process and exercise judicial discretion in future, before granting bail in heinous offences such as dowry death.
The single-judge Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said that the approach of the trial court in granting bail to the accused, who had been accused of heinous offences and before investigation had been completed, was perverse and capricious. While a detailed evaluation of facts on merits was not required for a bail order, the court could not be oblivious of its duty to apply judicial mind, it said.
The accused had been charged with offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty to woman by husband or relatives of husband), 304-B (dowry death) read with 34 (acts done in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 (giving or taking dowry) and 4 (demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Also Read: Educating Our Teenagers
The complainant, the younger brother of the deceased woman, filed a complaint stating that the accused husband and the victim, Sunitha got married in 2020, at which time her family had given gold ornaments and cash of Rs 3,50,000, as well as borne the expenses of the wedding.
Two months later, the husband quarreled with his wife demanding Rs six lakh for the construction of his house. A Panchayat meeting was held in this regard, and Sunitha’s mother sent her back to her husband, promising that they would contribute to building his house.
However, as their crops failed that year, they were unable to contribute financially and the accused husband assaulted his wife.
In February 2021, the complainant-brother received a call that his sister was admitted to a hospital with burn injuries, following which she died. When he reached her village he was informed that her death was accidental, which was recorded in the police station.
Also Read: Madras High Court disposes of PIL with Rs 5,000 cost for misusing court to settle personal score
After her funeral however, the complainant found that his sister had sent voice messages to his neighbour saying that if anything wrong happened to her, her husband and the other two accused would be responsible. Following this discovery, he lodged a complaint and police began investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused.
Two of the accused sought anticipatory bail, and one applied for regular bail, all of which were granted by the trial court, on the grounds that none of the offences are exclusively punishable with death or life imprisonment, and it was only after the neighbour revealed the voice messages that the complaint was lodged.
It said that whether the messages were really recorded by the deceased Sunitha, and the ownership of mobile phone can only be ascertained at the time of trial.
The trial court further noted that if the deceased was subjected to mental and physical cruelty in connection with dowry, she would have told her family about it.
Also Read: Allahabad High Court transfers probe into Rs-1200 crore fertiliser scam to CBI
The High Court noted that a specific allegation had been made that the deceased wife had before her death, sent voice messages to her brother’s neighbour from her husband’s phone, stating that if anything were to happen to her, the accused would be responsible.
In light of this, the observation of the trial court that it had to be ascertained whether the phone belonged to the deceased was callous.
Even though the accused were charged with heinous offences, and the death of the victim was because of burn injuries, the trial court invoked its powers under Section 438 (anticipatory bail) of the CrPC, granting bail to the accused without even waiting for the investigation to be completed, said the High Court.
The trial court had lost sight of the heinous offence that the victim who was married in 2020, lost her life within a year by burn injuries and cruelty in her matrimonial home, the Bench noted.
The Court directed the registry of the High Court to seek appropriate orders from the Chief Justice to post the Additional District and Sessions Judge who passed the order, to be sent to judicial academy for training.
The Court also directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Judge, who had granted bail.
Advocate Hemanth Kumar SR represented the petitioner, and High Court Government Pleader Krishna Kumar KK appeared for the State.
Case name: Sunil Kumar vs State and Ors