1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1488 OF 2017
BETWEEN:-
1. GANGAMMA
W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED 80 YEARS,
2. RAMANJINAPPA @ RAMANJANEYA
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED 55 YEARS,
3. KANTHAMMA
W/O RAMANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
4. NAVEEN KUMAR
S/O RAMANJINAPPA
AGED 22 YEARS,
5. RAVI KUMAR
S/O RAMANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS,
PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF BANADAPALYA VILLAGE,
HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. … PETITIONERS
(By Sri: GOPALA KRISHNA B N, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
WOMEN POLICE, TUMKUR
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-560001.
… RESPONDENT
(By Sri: B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST
IN CR.NO.99/2016 OF WOMEN P.S., TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,307,302 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL. P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 438 Cr.P.C seeking
anticipatory bail in Cr.No.99/2016 registered by the respondent
police for the offences punishable under sections 498-A 307
r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP on behalf of the respondent-State. The learned
HCGP has not filed any written statement of objections opposing
the petition. However, in the course of hearing the learned
3
HCGP has strongly opposed the bail petition and has referred to
the dying declaration of the victim recorded in the hospital.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
deceased was living with her husband and two children
separately. The petitioners alongwith their family members have
been residing away from the house of the victim and therefore
there was no occasion whatsoever for the petitioners to subject
the deceased to cruelty or to commit any other acts as alleged in
the complaint.
3. The learned HCGP pointed out that the incident took
place in the matrimonial house. Soon after the incident, the
deceased was taken to Government Hospital, Tumkur and from
there she was shifted to Victoria hospital, Bengaluru. By then,
the brother of the victim having received the information had
lodged a report and based on the said report, Cr.No.99/2016
came to be registered. Even in the said report, specific
accusations are alleged against the present petitioners and the
overt-acts committed by them are detailed. Added to that, on
registration of the said case, the police officials visited the
4
Victoria hospital and recorded the statement of the injured
victim. Since the victim succumbed to the burn injuries on
27.12.2016, the said statement assumes the character of a
dying declaration. The learned HCGP submits that even in this
statement attributed to the deceased, the petitioners are
squarely implicated and the individual role performed by them
is narrated, which is in consonance with the contents of the FIR
lodged by the brother of the victim. Therefore, in the face of this
prima-facie material and having regard to the manner in which
the offence is committed, this is not a fit case to grant the
anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. On considering the above facts and circumstances, I am
of the view that until the investigation is completed, the
petitioners cannot be admitted to anticipatory bail. The
custodial interrogation of the petitioners is also necessary.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*mn/-
