SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Devegowda @ Marigowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7221/2017

BETWEEN:

1. Sri Devegowda @ Marigowda
s/o Marigowda
aged about 79 years,

2. Smt.Vijaya
w/o Devegowda @ Marigowda
aged about 60 years

Both are r/o Channappanadoddi
Village, Mandya Taluk,
Mandya District Pin Code:571 401.
. .. PETITIONERS

(By Sri Shivaswamy, Adv.)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
By Mandya Rural Police,
Mandya Town, Taluk and District.
Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru -560 001. .. RESPONDENT

(By Sri K Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of their arrest in Cr. No.473/2017 of Mandya Rural
2

P.S., Mandya District for the offence punishable under
Sections 304(B), 302 R/W 34 of IPC.

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a

direction to the respondent police that in the event of their

arrest, they be released on bail for the offences

punishable under Sections 304B, 302 read with section

34 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime

No.473/2017. After investigation, charge sheet came to

be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A

and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for

the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 and the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-

State.

3

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners made

submission that the petitioners are innocent and they

were not involved in committing the alleged offence. They

are suffering from the age old problems and ailments.

The learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to

the document produced in this regard. Investigation of

the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed.

The learned Counsel submitted that accused No.1 is

surrendered before the police. Accused No.4 is granted

with bail by the order of the learned Sessions Judge.

Hence, He submitted that by imposing reasonable

conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the

course of the arguments, made submission that looking to

the complaint averments, there are specific allegations as

against the petitioners also that they have insisted the

deceased to bring more dowry amount from her parental

place and she was subjected to ill treatment, both

physically and mentally. The alleged incident took place
4

in the house of the petitioners. The learned HCGP made

further submission that during investigation, the

petitioners were not available to the investigating officer

and not cooperated in the investigation proceedings. They

were absconding. The charge sheet is filed showing them

as absconding accused. In view of this factual matrix,

they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

5. I have perused the averments made in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials on record

including the medical records.

6. Looking to the allegation made in the complaint,

prima facie, there are allegation as against the petitioners

also that they were insisting the deceased to bring dowry

amount from her parental place, subjecting her to cruel

treatment immediately prior to the alleged incident. The

prosecution material goes to show that investigating

officer during the investigation recorded the statement of

witnesses. Investigating officer filed charge sheet showing

the petitioners as absconding accused. This goes to show
5

that during investigation, the petitioners have not

cooperated with the investigating officer to conduct

investigation and to interrogate them. Looking to the

alleged offence under section 304(b) which is also a

serious offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case

to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. The

petition is accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs/-

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh