1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8101/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. CHIKKA BYRAPPA
@ CHINNA BYARAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. SMT. PADMAMMA
W/O CHIKK BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O
DEVARLAPALLI VILLAGE,
PATHAPALYA HOBLI,
CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT – 562 101.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PATHAPALYA P.S.
REP BY SPP,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
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.58/2017
OF PATAPALYA P.S., CHICKBALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 302, 304B R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.2 and 3 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, 302,
304B read with 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent
police station Crime No.58/2017.
2. 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.
3
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners during
the course of his arguments has submitted that looking
to the complaint averments there are allegations so far
as accused No.1 is concerned that he phoned to his
brother-in-law and informed that his sister expired and
he himself has committed her murder and he
challenged that what he can do against him. He
submitted that now the investigation is completed and
charge sheet is also filed and the matter is now pending
in C.C.No.426/2017. Even looking to the complaint
averments there are no allegations of demand for dowry.
He submitted that the alleged offence under Section 302
of IPC is not at all attracted. So far as the offence under
Section 304B of IPC is concerned, prosecution has not
placed the material to attract the said offence. Hence,
submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions,
petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
4
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader, referring to the averments made in the
complaint, has submitted that there is demand for
dowry in the form of gold and cash, after five months of
marriage, the ill-treatment was started to the deceased
by the petitioners herein. He also refers to the
averments in the complaint that the deceased has
informed to her parents that after four days of delivery,
when she was enquired she told before them that when
she was carrying pregnancy of seven months, petitioner
No.1/accused No.2 kicked on her stomach portion with
the lower limbs, petitioner No.2/accused No.3 caught
hold her, pulled her hairs and when in the evening
same was informed to her husband, he took the club
and assaulted on the stomach portion and all these
things were informed by the deceased on the next day to
them. Hence, submitted that even with regard to the
5
physical assault on the deceased there is a material
placed by the prosecution in the complaint. He also
submitted that during investigation period they were not
at all available to the Investigating Officer, they were
absconding. Hence, he submitted that because of their
conduct, they are not entitled for grant of anticipatory
bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet
material produced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners.
6. Looking to the complaint averments there
are specific allegations against the petitioners herein
that they demanded money and gold from the deceased
and in that connection they were giving ill-treatment
and harassment to the deceased and there are
averments even on the physical assault made on her,
6
which she has informed to the family members. It is
submitted by the learned HCGP that during the entire
period of investigation, petitioners were not available for
the Investigating Officer and they remained absconding.
Considering all these aspects of the matter and the
seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that it is
not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, petition
is hereby rejected.
However, at this stage, learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are prepared to
surrender before the concerned Court, if they surrender
and made an application seeking regular bail, the
concerned Court is directed to consider the said
application on priority basis and to dispose of the same
on merits, if possible on the same day.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR