IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2018
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9943/2017
S/O LATE GURUSIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O GANDHINAGARA VILLAGE,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.
(By Sri DINESHKUMAR RAO K, ADVOCATE)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001)
(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 HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.269/2017
(C.C.NO.2485/2017) OF DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 302,
304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.2
bail directing the respondent-Police to release the
petitioner-accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest
the Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent-
Police in Crime No.269/2017.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner-accused No.2 and also learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. One Smt. Kusuma is the deceased in this case and
the present petitioner-accused No.2 is the father-in-law of
the deceased. The brother of the deceased one
C.N.Hanumanthappa is the complainant, who lodged the
complaint making allegations against all the accused
persons that they were giving ill-treatment and
harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring dowry
from her parental place and in that regard they gave both
physical and mental harassment to the deceased and,
thereafter, they committed the murder of the deceased
Kusuma. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint,
initially FIR came to be registered against all the four
accused persons for the offences punishable under
4. Looking to the prosecution material, earlier the
present petitioner-accused No.2 along with other accused
persons approached this Court seeking their release on bail
by filing a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The Court
after considering the merits of the case allowed the
petition in-part and accused Nos.2 and 3 were granted
anticipatory bail, whereas the petition in respect of the
present petitioner-accused No.2 came to be rejected, for
which, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-
accused No.2 made a submission that after completing the
investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the case.
Insofar as the present petitioner-accused No.2 is
concerned, charge sheet is only for the alleged offence
which were there at the crime stage even against the
present petitioner were not at all there in the charge
sheet. Hence, he submits that in view of the filing of the
charge sheet after completing the investigation and as the
petitioner-accused No.2 is aged 66 years, he is prepared to
abide by any reasonable conditions that may be imposed
by this Court. Hence, the petition may be allowed.
5. The same is opposed by the learned High Court
Government Pleader on the ground that during
investigation, the petitioner-accused No.2 was not
available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation and,
therefore, he submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is
not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Perusing the materials on record, the rejection of the
earlier bail petition was because of the reason that the
also against the present petitioner as per the FIR, but after
completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer
made it clear that the only offence said to have been
committed by the present petitioner-accused No.2 is under
Prohibition Act. The present petitioner is aged 66 years as
shown in the cause-title, which fact is not seriously
disputed by the prosecution and the investigation
completed and charge sheet is also filed. The petitioner-
accused No.2 has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any
reasonable conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
Hence, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-
Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner-accused
No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with
Crime No.269/2017 registered for the above said offences,
subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner-accused No.2 shall
execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and
shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii) The petitioner-accused No.2 shall not
tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses,
directly or indirectly.
iii) The petitioner-accused No.2 has to make
himself available before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation, as and when called for
and to cooperate with the further investigation.
iv) The petitioner-accused No.2 has to
appear before the concerned Court within 30
days from the date of this order and to execute
the personal bond and the surety bond.