SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Bheemappa S/O Hanumantappa … vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

1

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 20 T H DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101278/2021

BETWEEN:

1. BHEEMAPPA S/ O HANUMANTAPPA KA TAGI
AGE 61 YEARS , OCC COOLIE,
R/O ANEGUNDI , T Q GAN GAVATHI,
DIST KOPPAL- 583227.

2. SMT.ALAVELAMMA W/O BHEEMAPPA K ATAGI
AGE 55 YEARS , OCC HOUSEHOLD ,
R/O ANEGUNDI , T Q GAN GAVATHI,
DIST KOPPAL- 583227.

3. HANUMESH S/ O BHEEMAPPA KATAGI
AGE 24 YEARS , OCC SECURITY GUARD,
R/O ANEGUNDI , T Q GAN GAVATHI,
DIST KOPPAL- 583227.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH GANGAV ATI RURAL P.S .-583227
R/BY PUBLIC PROS ECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH.
… RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI , HCGP)
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKIN G TO GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE
PETITIONERS / A CCUSED N O.2 TO 4 IN GANGAVAT HI
RURAL POLICE STATION CRIME NO.318/ 2020
REGISTERED F OR THE OFF ENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498A , 302, 304B R/W 34 OF
IPC AND 3, 4
AND 6 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961
PENDING ON THE FILE OF T HE PRL. CIVIL JUD GE AND
JMFC COURT, GAN GAVATHI.

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the accused under

Section 439 of The Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’,

for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.318/2020

of Gangavati Rural Police Station, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, 302, 304B r/w 34 of The Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for

brevity).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that

one Revanappa has filed the complaint stating
3

that the marriage of his daughter Smt.Shruti

was performed with accused No.1-Manjunath

on 03.03.2019 and at the time of marriage, he

gave 3 tola of gold, Rs.50,000/- and utensils

etc. After the marriage, the deceased Shruti

went to her matrimonial home, initial three

months her in-laws treated her well, thereafter

her husband-accused No.1-Manjunath, accused

No.2-father-in-law, accused No.3-mother-in-

law, accused No.4-brother-in-law and sister-in-

laws started harassing her. Whenever the

deceased used to come to her parental house,

she used to tell the said aspect to her parents.

The complainant and his relatives went to the

house of accused and the elders compromised

the matter between both the sides and they

sent the deceased Shruti to her matrimonial

house. It is further stated that since last three
4

months, due to the dowry amount, the accused

persons harassing the deceased mentally and

physically, therefore the complainant has told

his daughter and her husband that he is going

to make good of the dowry amount. The

deceased Shruti was sustaining the dowry

harassment at her husband’s house. On

17.12.2020, the complainant took the deceased

to her husband’s house and left her in her

husband’s house and told in laws that, he

will pay them Rs.50,000/- in the month of

January. On 19.06.2020 at about 10.00 p.m.

the deceased has informed to her brother

Maruti over phone that her husband Manjunath,

father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law

are harassing by assaulting her for dowry

amount. When the same was informed to the

complainant, then he talked to Shruti over
5

phone and told her that he will come there

next day morning. When the complainant

again called to his daughter, then her phone

was switched off and her husband and others

did not respond to the phone call. It is further

stated that on 20.12.2020, at about 12.00 p.m.

when the complainant went to his daughter’s

house along with his son Maruti, he saw that

his daughter was murdered and her body was

on the floor. It is further stated that the

accused persons have murdered the deceased

Shruti and laid her body on the floor. It is

alleged that on 19.12.2020, all the accused

persons have assaulted and committed the

murder of his daughter Shruti by hanging her.

The said complaint came to registered in Crime

No.318/2020 for the aforesaid offences. The

petitioners came to be arrested on 21.12.2020
6

and they are remanded to judicial custody. The

petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.204/2021, seeking

bail and the same came to be rejected by the I

Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Koppal

(Sitting at Gangavathi), by order dated

08.06.2021. Therefore, the petitioners are

before this Court seeking bail.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. It is the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners

are innocent, have not committed any offence

as alleged and they have been falsely

implicated in this case. He further contends

that on perusal of the charge sheet at column

No.17, spot mahazar, further statement of
7

CW.1 and injuries noted in post mortem report,

it is clear that the deceased committed suicide.

He contends that the doctor who conducted

post mortem examination has not given

opinion regarding the cause of death and it is

kept pending till receipt of FSL report. He

contends that accused Nos.5 and 6 who are

sisters of accused No.1 have been granted

anticipatory bail by this Court. He contends

that charge sheet has been filed and therefore

the petitioners are not required for any

custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed

for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader contended that the offence

alleged against the petitioners is heinous

offence punishable with death or imprisonment

for life. He contends that on perusal of the
8

entire charge sheet material, there is a prima

facie material against the petitioners, if the

petitioners are granted bail, they will tamper

the prosecution witnesses and flee from

justice. With this, he prayed to dismiss the

petition.

6. Having regard to the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government

Pleader, this Court has gone through the

charge sheet records.

7. The accusation leveled against the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 and accused

No.1 is that they used to harass the deceased

Shruti, demanding dowry and on the date of

the incident, they harassed her and caused her

death and hanged her. On perusal of the
9

averments of the spot mahazar, further

statement of CW.1 and injuries noted in post

mortem report, it appears that deceased has

committed suicide. The doctor who conducted

post mortem examination has not given his

final opinion and it is kept pending till receipt

of FSL report. Therefore, whether the death of

deceased is suicidal or homicidal is a matter of

trial. As the charge sheet has been filed the

petitioners are not required for any custodial

interrogation. The petitioner No.1 is aged 61

years and petitioner No.2 is a woman aged 55

years. There are no criminal antecedents of

the petitioners. The main objection of the

prosecution is that in the event of granting

bail, the petitioners are likely to cause threat

to the complainant and other prosecution
10

witnesses. The said objection may be set right

by imposing stringent conditions.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court

is of the view that there are valid grounds for

granting bail subject to certain terms and

conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the

petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 shall be

released on bail in Crime No.318/2020 of

Gangavati Rural Police Station subject to the

following conditions:

i) The petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4
shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one
11

lakh only) each with one surety for
the like sum to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.

ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) The petitioners shall attend the Court
on all the dates of hearing unless
exempted and co-operate in speedy
disposal of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RM

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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