SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kavitha C vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.789/2018

BETWEEN:

1. KAVITHA C
W/O VEERACHAR H B
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDENTS OF NO.95/23,
VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
HANDARALLI MAIN ROAD,
PEENYA 2ND STAGE,
NEAR CHETAN CIRCLE,
BANGALORE-560 091.

2. SRI BHASKARACHAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

3. SMT JAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.

BOTH PETITIONER NO.2
AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS AT
HEGGATTA VILLAGE,
GANDASI HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK,
HASSAN-573 119. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, ADV.,)
2

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GANDASI POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

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.235/2017 OF GANDASI POLICE STATION, HASSAN
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) AND 304(B) R/W 34 OF
IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused

Nos.3, 4 and 5 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, 304B

read with 34 of IPC registered in respondent police

station Crime No.235/2017.

3

2. The brother of the deceased lodged the

complaint in this case, wherein he made allegations that

at the time of marriage of the deceased with the

Shanthakumar (Accused No.1), Rs.75,000/- cash, 12

grams of gold ring was given to the husband of the

deceased and even they have given the ornaments to the

deceased (sister of the complainant). The husband of

the deceased used to be at Bengaluru and often he used

to come to the village. The further allegation shows that

accused No.1 and other family members were giving ill-

treatment and harassment to the deceased, they were

not providing proper food to her and they were alleging

that she does not know to attend any work and hence,

they were giving ill-treatment both physically and

mentally, though this fact was brought to the notice of

her husband, he has also not advised the other family

members. When the sister of the complainant was
4

carrying three months pregnancy, at that time also no

proper medical check up was given to her and nobody

cared about the health of the deceased and in that way

they gave ill-treatment to her. On 04.11.2017 morning

at about 8.30a.m. the complainant received the phone

message stating that his sister is not feeling well and

she was taken to Arasikere Government Hospital for the

purpose of treatment, then he went to the said Hospital,

by the time he went to the hospital, his sister was dead.

On the basis of the said allegations, case came to be

registered for the alleged offences.

3. 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.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader,

has submitted that the petitioners herein have not at all
5

cooperated with the Investigation Officer during

investigation, therefore, while filing charge sheet, they

were shown as absconding accused. Hence, submitted

that petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.

5. Perusing the materials, no doubt there are

allegations made even against the petitioners, but

looking into the age factor, petitioner No.2/accused

No4. is aged about 70 years, petitioner No.3/accused

No.5 is aged about 65 years, the said fact is not

disputed by the prosecution. Petitioner No.1/accused

No.3 is a woman. Now the investigation is completed

and charge sheet is also filed. Petitioners have

undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by

this Court. The alleged offences are also not exclusively

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Even if

it is argued by the learned HCGP that there is a prima-

facie material, but looking into the age of the petitioner
6

Nos.2 and 3, and as petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are women, I

am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable

conditions, petitioners can be admitted to anticipatory

bail.

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present

petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in

connection with Crime No. 235/2017 registered for the

above said offences, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each and shall
furnish one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the arresting
authority.

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

7

iii. Petitioners have to make themselves
available before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation, as and when
called for and to cooperate with the
further investigation.

iv. The petitioners have 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.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BSR

Leave a Reply

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

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