Smt.Uma Devi K vs State Of Karnataka on 16 January, 2018

1

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10256/2017

BETWEEN:
Smt. Umadevi K,
W/o. S.M. Munegowda,
Aged 40 years,
R/at Seethakempanahalli Village,
Hesaraghatta Hobli, Kakolu,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore -560 089. …Petitioner

(By Sri. Nalina K. Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka by
Rajanukunte Police Station,
Bangalore -560 064. …Respondent

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the
event of her arrest in Cr.No.273/2017 of Rajanukunte
Police Station, Bangalore for the offence P/U/S 304B,
302, 307 and 498A r/w 34 of
IPC.
2

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail

and to direct the respondent police to release the

petitioner/accused -3 on bail for the alleged offence

punishable under Sections 304B, 302, 307 and 498A r/w

34 of IPC, registered by the respondent Police in crime

No. 273/2017 of Rajanukunte Police Station, Bangalore.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused No.3 and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent State.

3. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced in

the case. One Rajani is the deceased in this case and the

father of the deceased is the complainant. It is alleged in

the complaint that the accused No.1 and 2 were insisting
3

his daughter to bring additional dowry amount. On the

basis of the complaint, FIR also came to be registered

against accused No.1 Ananda Gowda and accused No. 2

Munithayamma. Perusing the contents of the complaint it

is found, absolutely there is no allegation so far as the

petitioner herein is concerned. Even the name of the

petitioner is not taken in the complaint. FIR is registered

only against accused No.1 and 2. Petitioner herein

contended in the bail petition that she is innocent and

not involved in committing the offence. She is ready to

abide by any reasonable conditions that may be imposed

by this Court.

4. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on

record, as there is no allegations against the petitioner,

so also the petitioner being a woman aged 40 years, I am

of the opinion that, it is a fit case to exercise the

discretion in favour of accused No.3.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Petitioner/accused No.3 is granted anticipatory bail by

imposing reasonable conditions. Respondent police are
4

hereby directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the

event of her arrest for the alleged offence punishable

under Sections 304B, 302, 307 and 498A read with 34 of

IPC registered by the respondent police in crime

No.273/2017, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond
for Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction
of the concerned court.

ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.

iii. Petitioner shall make herself available
before the Investigating Officer for
interrogation as and when called for and
to cooperate with further investigation.

Since the main petition is disposed, the question of

I.A.No.1/2017 for interim bail does not survive for

consideration. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2017 is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
BVK

Leave a Comment

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