SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Allayya S/O Rudrayya Pujar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

Dated this the 19th day of April 2017

Before

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

Criminal Petition No.100659/2017
BETWEEN

ALLAYYA S/O RUDRAYYA PUJAR
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
R/O: HONNAPUR
TAL DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH P S I
DHARWAD RURAL POLICE STATION
REPTD BY SPP HCKB
DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE
THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN DHARWAD RURAL POLICE
STATION IN CRIME NO. 211 OF 2015 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 323, 306 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3019 OF 2016
(S.C.NO. 155 OF 2016).

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1

under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code registered in respondent-Police Station

Crime No.211/2016. But, later, after the demise of the

deceased, and as per the requisition made by the police,

the offence under Section 306 of IPC is also inserted in the

case.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the

submission that though there is allegation in the complaint

that ill-treatment was given by the petitioner and also by

other members of the family, the averments in the
3

complaint also go to show that the deceased herself

poured kerosene and lit fire to herself. It is also his

submission that there is no dying declaration given by the

deceased. He also submitted that under similar set of

circumstances and on the same allegations, accused No.2

had approached this Court by filing Crl.P. No.101549/2016

and this Court has granted bail in respect of accused No.2.

Hence, he submitted that, by imposing reasonable

conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader made

the submission that the petitioner is the husband of the

deceased. Looking to the complaint there are specific

allegations against the present petitioner that he used to

ill-treat and harass the deceased. He also made the

submission that looking to the chargesheet material, the

statement of witnesses, they clearly go to show that the

present petitioner, along with his family members, used to

ill-treat and harass the deceased and thereby, they have

abetted the commission of the offence. Hence, he
4

submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted

with bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other materials produced

along with the petition. I have also perused the order

dated 27th February 2017 passed in Crl. P.

No.101549/2016, which was filed by accused No.2 seeking

his release on bail, and this Court allowed the said petition

and ordered to release accused No.2 on bail. Looking to

the allegations made in the complaint, they are against all

the three accused persons. Now, the investigation has

been completed and chargesheet has been filed. The

alleged offence under Section 306 is not exclusively

punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore,

on the ground of parity, the present petitioner can be

enlarged on bail.

6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner is

ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime
5

No.211/2016 registered in respondent-police station for

the alleged offences, subject to the following conditions:

i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond for
a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety
for the like sum to the satisfaction of
concerned Court.

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.

iii) Petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court on all the future hearing
dates unless exempted by the Court for
genuine reasons.

iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction
of the trial Court without prior permission
till the case registered against him is
disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kms

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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 read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation