Sri Chikka Byrappa vs State Of Karnataka on 21 November, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8101/2017
BETWEEN:

1. SRI. CHIKKA BYRAPPA
@ CHINNA BYARAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

2. SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O CHIKK BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

BOTH ARE R/O
DEVARLAPALLI VILLAGE,
PATHAPALYA HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101.
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV.,)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PATHAPALYA P.S.
REP BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.58/2017
OF PATAPALYA P.S., CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 302, 304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

THIS CRIMINAL 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

anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to

release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302,

304B read with 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent

police station Crime No.58/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

3

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners during

the course of his arguments has submitted that looking

to the complaint averments there are allegations so far

as accused No.1 is concerned that he phoned to his

brother-in-law and informed that his sister expired and

he himself has committed her murder and he

challenged that what he can do against him. He

submitted that now the investigation is completed and

charge sheet is also filed and the matter is now pending

in C.C.No.426/2017. Even looking to the complaint

averments there are no allegations of demand for dowry.

He submitted that the alleged offence under Section 302

of IPC is not at all attracted. So far as the offence under

Section 304B of IPC is concerned, prosecution has not

placed the material to attract the said offence. Hence,

submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions,

petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, referring to the averments made in the

complaint, has submitted that there is demand for

dowry in the form of gold and cash, after five months of

marriage, the ill-treatment was started to the deceased

by the petitioners herein. He also refers to the

averments in the complaint that the deceased has

informed to her parents that after four days of delivery,

when she was enquired she told before them that when

she was carrying pregnancy of seven months, petitioner

No.1/accused No.2 kicked on her stomach portion with

the lower limbs, petitioner No.2/accused No.3 caught

hold her, pulled her hairs and when in the evening

same was informed to her husband, he took the club

and assaulted on the stomach portion and all these

things were informed by the deceased on the next day to

them. Hence, submitted that even with regard to the
5

physical assault on the deceased there is a material

placed by the prosecution in the complaint. He also

submitted that during investigation period they were not

at all available to the Investigating Officer, they were

absconding. Hence, he submitted that because of their

conduct, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory

bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet

material produced by the learned counsel for the

petitioners.

6. Looking to the complaint averments there

are specific allegations against the petitioners herein

that they demanded money and gold from the deceased

and in that connection they were giving ill-treatment

and harassment to the deceased and there are

averments even on the physical assault made on her,
6

which she has informed to the family members. It is

submitted by the learned HCGP that during the entire

period of investigation, petitioners were not available for

the Investigating Officer and they remained absconding.

Considering all these aspects of the matter and the

seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that it is

not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, petition

is hereby rejected.

However, at this stage, learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that petitioners are prepared to

surrender before the concerned Court, if they surrender

and made an application seeking regular bail, the

concerned Court is directed to consider the said

application on priority basis and to dispose of the same

on merits, if possible on the same day.

Sd/-

JUDGE
BSR

Leave a Comment

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