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