Narayan S/O Ravaji Salagude vs The State Of Karnataka, on 29 June, 2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2017

Before

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

Criminal Petition No.101183/2017

Between:
1. Narayan S/o.Ravaji Salagude,
Age : 50 years, Occn:Agriculture,
R/o.Asangi, Tq : Jamakhandi,
Dist:Bagalkot.

2. Raju S/o.Narayan Salagude,
Age : 25 years, Occn : Household work
And Agriculture,
R/o.Asangi, Tq : Jamakhandi,
Dist : Bagalkot.
…Petitioners
(By Sri.Prashant S.Kadadevar, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka,
Rept. By its High Court Pleader,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Through its Banahatti PS,.
…Respondent

(By Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)
:2:

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. seeking to grant anticipatory bail by directing the
respondent police to enlarge the petitioners/accused No.2
and 3 on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.2/2017 in Banahatti Police Station for the offences
punishable under
Section 498A, 306 read with Section 34
of IPC by allowing the petition.

This petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court, made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2

and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory

bail to direct the respondent-police to release the

petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the

alleged offences punishable under Section 498A, 306

read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respondent-

police Station Crime No.2/2017.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the

complaint averments that, one Smt.Shantabai-the

mother of the deceased lodged the complaint alleging

that, she is having three daughters and a son, in which
:3:

the daughter named Malashree aged about 25 years was

READ  Saheba Begum @ Saheba Mallick @ ... vs Unknown on 13 April, 2017

given in marriage to Narayan/accused No.1 about six

years back, due to marital life her daughter having the

issues one daughter and one son, earlier her daughter

led happy marital life, after issue of a son then her

husband and petitioners started to harass her as she is

not properly cooking and she does not know the

household work, Malashree informed the same to the

complainant and her husband, then they advised to the

accused No.1 and petitioners not to do so, but they

continued to harass the deceased-Malashree. Further

allegation that, on 04.01.2017 at about 6.00 p.m. her

relatives namely Pandu Salgude telephonically informed

to the complainant that, her daughter died due to low BP

and also informed to come early for funeral, if not they

will perform the funeral. Then complainant and her

husband and other relatives went to the said village and

saw her daughter’s dead body was kept and saree was

tied to the neck. Thereafter complainant show the mark

on her neck enquired, they told that her daughter was
:4:

committed suicide at about 5.00 p.m. and accused No.1

and petitioners saw her, immediately taken her to the

hospital, but the doctor declared as she already dead.

Then they taken her dead body to the house. On the

basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered

for the said offences against the petitioners and also the

accused No.1.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3, so also the learned High

READ  State Of U.P. Vs. Santosh Kumar & Ors. on 3 September, 2009

Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the

submission that, she gave birth to one daughter and one

son in her marital life. Marriage was also performed

about six years back. Therefore, the learned counsel

made the submission that, that itself goes to show that

the accused persons treated the deceased properly. False

allegations made against them, they have not involved in

committing the alleged offences. Hence learned counsel
:5:

submitted, by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners

may be admitted to anticipatory bail.

5. Per Contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader made the submission that, looking to the

allegations in the complaint they goes to show that

petitioners and the husband of the deceased were not fair

enough to gave the correct message to the complainant

and it was wrongly informed that she died because of the

low BP, he also made the submission that they came to

said village and after seeing her neck by removing the

saree there were ligature mark, hence he made the

submission that, that itself goes to show the guilty mind

of the accused persons in suppressing the true facts, he

also submitted that, matter is still under investigation,

hence at this stage petitioners are not entitled to be

granted with anticipatory bail.

6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and order passed by the learned

Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application. Looking to
:6:

the materials placed on record and the opinion of the

READ  Gokul & Anr vs State on 1 August, 2017

doctor that, it is case of strangulation the death has been

caused. The matter stills under investigation, therefore at

this stage without making any comments on the merits of

the case. The petition is disposed of with a liberty to the

petitioners to approach the concerned Court after

completion of investigation and filing of the final-report.

Sd/-

JUDGE
CKK

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *