Karnataka High Court Smt. Gangamma vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1521 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.GANGAMMA

W/O.LATE MUDDARANGAIAH

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

R/AT.YALAGALAVADI VILLAGE

HUTRIDURGA HOBLI

KUNIGAL TALUK

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 137.

2. SMT.KALAVATHI @ CHANDRAKALA W/O.PAPANNA @ CHIKKABORAIAH

AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.

3. PAPANNA @ CHIKKABORAIAH

S/O.SHIVALINGAIAH

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.

2 & 3 ARE R/AT.DODDAGANGAVADI

VILLAGE, KOTAGAL HOBLI

RAMANAGARA TALUK

RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 562 138.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.RAM SINGH.K, ADV.,)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

KUNIGAL POLICE STATION

TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 137

2

REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU – 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 CR.P.C PLRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.44/2014 OF KUNIGAL P.S., TUMKUR, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B, R/W.149 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER

This is the petition filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.2, 5 and 6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in the respondent – police station Crime No.44/2014.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are; that the complainant Geetha married with accused No.1 on 25.04.2013. At the time of marriage, cash of 3

Rs.50,000/-, gold ornaments was given and performed the marriage at Karlhalli, Magadi taluk. After the marriage, the sister of the complainant had cordial relationship with accused No.1-Ramesh. Later, accused No.1 demanded to get more dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing the tractor and the mother-in-law, husband’s, elder sister and younger sister and her husband demanded to get dowry and harassed both mentally and physically and also provoking accused No.1, to get dowry amount from the sister of the complainant. It is also alleged that on 09.02.2014, they committed murder of the younger sister of the complainant and the same came to be known to the complainant through phone from one H.D.Gopal. When the complainant along with the family members came to the said place found that sister of the complainant lying dead, then same was informed by the complainant to the Kunigal police and against the complainant case has been registered against the alleged offence. 4

3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner – accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the allegations made in the complaint are against accused No.1- husband of the deceased that he was insisting her to bring Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing the tractor. Counsel made the submission that sofar as the present petitioners are concerned, there are no serious allegations except the general allegation made in the complaint that they were also giving ill-treatment insisting the deceased to bring the dowry amount and they were also instigating accused No.1 to get more dowry amount from her house. Counsel made the submission that in view of the general and bald allegations made against the present petitioners, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie material placed by the prosecution against the present 5

petitioners. Counsel submitted that the material also goes to show that it is the deceased who committed suicide by hanging and by imposing reasonable conditions petitioners can be admitted to anticipatory bail. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2005 Kar 1374.

5. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the incident has taken place within six months from the date of marriage that too when the deceased was leading her marital life in the house of accused No.1. Counsel also made the submission that regarding ill-treatment and harassment both physically and mentally to the deceased in connection with the additional dowry amount, there are clear cut allegations made in the complaint. Hence, the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation clearly goes to show that she was 6

subjected to cruel treatment earlier to this incident. He also submitted that the matter is still under investigation. Investigating Officer has to collect some more material and filed the charge sheet. He submitted that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner in this case. Hence, submitted to reject the bail petition.

6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, order passed by the lower Court and the bail application and other materials placed on record so also the decision and the principle enunciated in the said decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is referred above.

7. Certain facts are admitted even according to the present petitioners. The incident has taken place within six months from the date of marriage of the deceased and it has taken place in the house of accused No.1 when the deceased was leading her marital life. 7

Regarding ill-treatment and harassment with regards to the present petitioners are concerned, perusing the averments made in the complaint, there is an allegations even against the present petitioners also that they were also giving ill-treatment to the deceased demanding additional dowry amount not only that they were instigating accused No.1 to get more dowry amount from the deceased. This statement of the complainant who is the brother of the deceased gains the support from the statement of other witnesses which have been recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. So, materials placed on record goes to show earlier to the incident of this case, the deceased was subjected to cruel treatment and thereby the petitioners as well as the accused No.1 abetted the commission of the offence by the deceased. Therefore, looking to the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that prosecution placed the prima facie material about the involvement of the present petitioners also. However, sofar as the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are 8

concerned, they are the women and petitioner No.1 is aged about 45 years and petitioner No.2 who is said to be the sister of accused No.1. Therefore, looking to the case of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 since, they being women, to secure their presence either before the Investigating Officer or before the Trial Court, stringent conditions could be imposed to safeguard the interest of the prosecution.

8. Therefore, the petition so far as petitioner No.3 -Papanna is concerned is rejected and petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 ie., accused Nos.2 and 5 is allowed. The respondent – police are directed to release the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in the respondent – police station Crime No.44/2014, subject to the following conditions:

9

(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

(iii) The petitioners shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation whenever called for. (iv) The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within thirty

days from the date of this order and execute the personal bond, as well as the surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GH