SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Gayathri vs State By Melukote Police on 26 November, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7776/2019

BETWEEN:

GAYATHRI,
W/O. LATE NINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT:
MALLEGOWDANAKOPPALU VILLAGE,
K. SHETTHALLI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA-571445. … PETITIONER

[BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE]

AND:

STATE BY MELUKOTE POLICE,
MANDYA,
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:
2

ORDER

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
3

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:

4

ORDER

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

conditions:

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
Investigating Officer.

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
5

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.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Ksm*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Copyright © 2020 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