IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7776/2019
W/O. LATE NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
K. SHETTHALLI HOBLI,
MANDYA-571445. … PETITIONER
[BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE]
STATE BY MELUKOTE POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001. … RESPONDENT
[BY SRI.HONNAPPA, HCGP]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE
EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR. NO.90/2019 OF MELUKOTE P.S.,
MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304B, 498A R/W 34 OF SectionIPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.2 in Crime
No.90/2019 of Melukote P.S., for the offence under Sections
304(B), Section498(A) r/w. 34 of SectionIPC and under Sections 3 and Section4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, on the file of the Civil Judge [Jr.
Dn.] and JMFC Court, Pandavapura.
3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that;
The son of the petitioner i.e., accused No.1- Dinesh and
deceased Vidyamani were husband and wife and their
marriage took place about 4½ years ago prior to the incident.
It is alleged that at the time of their marriage, some gold
articles and money were given in consideration of the
marriage. Despite the same, the petitioner and others have
raised quarrel with deceased saying that at the time of the
marriage sufficient dowry was not given and forcing the
deceased to bring more money from her parental house. It is
further alleged in the complaint that about 3 months ago,
accused No.1 had sent the deceased to her parental house
and thereafter, they compromised the matter and on
26.09.2019 she was brought back to the matrimonial house.
But, again ‘galata’ started in the house. Therefore on
27.09.2019, Vidyamani went to the pump house belonging to
the uncle of accused No.1 and committed suicide.
4. The petitioner is the mother of accused No.1.
There is no specific allegations made against her about giving
any ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased with regard
to payment of dowry soon after the marriage. Whether the
provisions under Section 304(B) of IPC is attracted or not is
not made clear in the complaint and therefore, it has to be
decided during the course of full fledged trial before the trial
Court. The petitioner is a lady and the offence is not
punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. In the
facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any
specific allegations against this petitioner, in my opinion, the
petitioner is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail with
conditions. Hence, the following:
The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner
shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in
connection with Crime No.90/2019 of Melukote P.S., Mandya
for the offence under Sections 304(B), Section498(A) r/w. 34 of SectionIPC
and under Sections 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, on
the file of the Civil Judge [Jr. Dn.] and JMFC Court,
Pandavapura, Mandya District subject to the following
i) The petitioner shall surrender herself
before the Investigating Officer within
Ten days from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order and shall
execute a personal bond for a sum of
Rs.50,000/- [Rupees Fifty Thousand
only] with one surety for the like-sum to
the satisfaction of the concerned
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in
hampering the investigation or
tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the
Investigating Officer to complete the
investigation, and she shall appear
before the Investigating Officer as and
when called for.
iv) The petitioner shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer
without prior permission, till the charge
sheet is filed or for a period of three
months whichever is earlier.