Karnataka High Court Basappa S/O. Gurappa Jigalur vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 April, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No.100644/2014 BETWEEN:
S/O. GURAPPA JIGALUR
S/O. BASAPPA JIGALUR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
TQ: KUNDAGOL DIST: DHARWAD
(BY SRI. VIDYASHANKAR G DALWAI, ADV.) AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
ITS P S I KUNDAGOL POLICE STATION R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
(BY SRI.V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP) 2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THERE ARREST, IN KUNDAGOL P.S. CRIME NO.31/2014 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 504, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.31/2014 Kundagol Police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 306 read with 34 of IPC.
2. The allegation made against the petitioner and other accused persons are that a person by name Shekhappa S/o Ramappa Shintri, who was the father of the deceased, lodged a complaint stating that his daughter by name Anasuya given in marriage to Hanamappa, about 14 years prior to the incident. The 3
deceased and her husband were residing in one portion house and in another portion, his brother Gurusiddappa, Sister-in-law Manjula,s son-in-law Hanumantappa were also residing. The father-in-law of the deceased and brother of her husband have not given proper share in the family property to the husband of the deceased. For which the deceased Anasuya was always raising voice against other members of the family. In this background, it is alleged that on 12.10.2013 in the evening at 4.00 p.m. all the accused persons have abused the said deceased Anasuya and told her to leave the said house along with husband and children, go and die. Therefore, At about 3.00 p.m. she consumed some poison and became restless, thereafter she was admitted to the hospital. However, she died in the hospital on the next day. Making allegation against the petitioner and the other accused persons that they have instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide and a complaint 4
came to be lodged. On perusal of the complaint it is clear that, the said Anasuya had been raising her voice against other members of the family since long regarding her husband’s share in the family property. It is not made clear as to what are the abusive words used by the accused person it is also not specifically stated in order to ascertain whether those words are sufficient to drive her to commit suicide. Moreover, as could be seen from the records, the Sessions Judge has released other accused persons, Manjula wife of second petitioner and Kallamma daughter of petitioner No.1 on anticipatory bail. At paragraph 8 of the order learned Sessions Judge mentioned that petitioners 3 and 4 are womenfolk no serious allegations made against them as made against petitioner Nos.1 and 2, but I do not find distinct separate allegations, made against the petitioners 1 and
2. A plain reading of the complaint that common allegations are made by the accused persons. When the 5
learned Sessions Judge exercising the powers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. extended bail to other accused, who stand on the same footing. In my opinion, these petitioners are also entitled for bail. Hence looking into the factual aspects of the case, the accused persons already released on bail. Hence, the following order passed:
The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with P.S.Crime No.31/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 504, 306 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of the Kundagol police, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within 10 days from 6
the date of receipt of copy of this order and execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer as the case may be.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses and he should assist the police in further investigation, if any, and for any interrogation in this regard. iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court, without prior permission till the charge sheet is filed.