1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4877/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Giridhara
S/o Halappanaik,
Aged about 32 years,
Agriculturist.
2. Halappanaik
S/o Bhimanaik,
Aged about 63 years,
Agriculturist.
3. Lalitabai
W/o Halappanaik,
Aged about 55 years,
All are residing at
Chikkabasura (Vijayapura) tanda,
Honnali Taluk,
Davanagere District – 577 224.
…Petitioners
(By Sri S.V.Bhojaraja, Advocate)
AND
State of Karnataka,
By Honnali Police,
Davanagere District – 577217.
2
By S.P.P High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru – 01.
…Respondent
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in
Crime No.15/2018 of Honnali Police Station,
Davanagere District for the Offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 504 read with 34 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for petitioners’ and the
learned High Court Government Pleader.
2. FIR was registered in Crime No.15/2018
against all the petitioners in relation to the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 307, 323, 324
read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The complaint was made by the wife of first
petitioner stating that her marriage with the first
3
petitioner took place about five or six years ago and in
the wedlock, three children were born. The allegations
are that the petitioners pledged the jewellery of the
complainant in a bank to borrow money. Whenever the
complainant asked the petitioners to repay the loan and
bring back the jewellery, they all started harassing her
by abusing and beating her. Thereafter, they also
started demanding her to bring some more dowry from
her parents house and in that connection, they started
beating her with stick. On 17.07.2018, when the
complainant requested the petitioners to bring back her
jewellery from the bank, they took up quarrel with her.
The first petitioner poured kerosene on her body and lit
fire. She came out of the house and jumped into water
filled drum and thus the fire came to be doused. She
was taken to hospital at Shivamogga, but on the advice
of Doctor at Mcggon Hospital, Shivamogga, she was
taken to Manipal Hospital, Mangaluru. Thereafter, she
was shifted to Venlock Hospital, Mangaluru. As all the
4
beds were occupied by patients, in the said hospital, she
was shifted to Father Muller Hospital. In this Hospital,
she made a statement before the Police, on the basis of
which, FIR was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners tries to
argue that the complainant was not residing with the
petitioners. He submits that boundaries mentioned in
the spot mahazar are wrong. The Police intentionally
gave wrong boundaries in the mahazar to show that the
incident took place in the house of the petitioners. But
the petitioners have produced another document, which
shows the correct boundaries and therefore, it can be
said very well that incident did not take place in the
house of the petitioners. It is his another point of
argument that the complainant caught the fire
accidentally. He further submits that petitioner Nos.2
and 3 are aged and without any basis, they have been
falsely implicated.
5
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader
opposes the grant of bail. The complaint came to be
registered on the statement made by the wife of first
petitioner. The medical report shows burn injuries. An
attempt was made by the petitioners to kill her. There
are prima-facie materials against the petitioners and
therefore, bail cannot be granted.
6. If the complaint is read, the specific overt act
of setting fire to the complainant is against the first
petitioner, who is none other than her husband. The
medical report also shows burn injuries sustained by
the complainant. If the correct boundaries are not
mentioned in the mahazar and the place of incident is
disputable, the petitioners can question the
Investigating Officer during the trial. This aspect cannot
be given any importance now. As of now there are prima
facie materials against the first petitioner. Investigation
is completed. It also shows that prima-facie materials
6
are available against all the petitioners. But, petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 are aged. The specific overt act of setting
fire is against the first petitioner only. In these
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the first
petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. However,
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 can be released on bail. Hence,
the following:
ORDER
(1) Petition stands dismissed as
against the first petitioner.
(2) Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are
ordered to be released on bail in connection
with Crime No.15/2018 registered by
Honnali Police Station, Davanagere District
subject to each of them on executing a bond
for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One
Lakh only) and providing two sureties for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
They are also subjected to following
conditions:
i. They shall not tamper with the evidence
collected by the investigating officer.
7
ii. They shall not directly or indirectly
threaten the witnesses.
iii. They shall regularly appear before the
Court for trial, without fail.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS/nms
