SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

H Manjappa vs The State By Police Sub Inspector on 10 July, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3429/2019

Between:

1. H. Manjappa
S/o. Thimmappa,
Aged about 69 years,
R/o. Mandaghatt Village,
Shivamogga – 577 201.

2. Smt. Manjamma
W/o. Manjappa H,
Aged about 61 years,
R/o. Mandaghatt Village,
Shivamogga – 577 201.
… Petitioners

(By Sri. K. V. Sateeshchandra, Advocate)

And:

The State by Police Sub-Inspector
Kumsi Police Station,
Shivamogga Taluk,
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bengaluru 560 001.
…Respondent
(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners
2

and direct the respondent – Kumsi Police Station, Kumsi,
Shivamogga Taluk, to release the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.100/2019 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498-A, Section306 read with Section 34
of IPC pending on the file of the Additional Civil and Junior
Division and JMFC-II Court, Shivamogga.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court, made the following:

ORDER

Petitioner No.1 – accused No.2 is the father-in-law

of deceased. Petitioner No.2 – accused No.3 is the

mother-in-law of deceased. They are seeking to be

enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest with respect

to the proceedings in Crime No.100/2019 for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, Section306 read with

Section 34 of IPC.

2. The case that is made out in the complaint is

that the complainant’s sister is the deceased, who

married accused No.1-Chandrashekara about ten years

back. It is stated that two children are born out from

within their wed lock. It is further stated that there has
3

been harassment by the petitioners and accused No.1,

leading to the deceased committing suicide.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that accused No.1 has surrendered himself and

subjected himself to custodial interrogation and states

that in light of the allegations made, matter rests on

evidence to be adduced. Custodial interrogation as such

may not be required.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader

opposes the grant of anticipatory bail and states that

there is prima facie material to come to the conclusion

that offence has been committed and that the nature of

cruelty inflicted ought to be taken note of.

5. Taking note of the fact that accused No.1

has surrendered himself and has subjected himself to

custodial interrogation and also noticing that the

present case rests on oral and other evidence to be
4

adduced, there is force in the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that no case is made out for

custodial interrogation. Role of the petitioner in

commission of crime is a matter to be proved during

trial.

6. It is noticed that the Sessions Court had

rejected the application of the petitioner stating that the

matter is still at the stage of investigation and hence, no

case was made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail.

7. Taking note of the fact that petitioner No.2

is woman and both petitioners 1 and 2 are aged beyond

60 years, noting that the present proceedings cannot be

construed to be proceedings for punishment, petitioners

are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the

event of their arrest.

8. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the

petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and
5

the petitioners are enlarged on bail in the event of their

arrest in Crime No.100/2019 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, Section306 read with Section

34 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall appear in person
before the Investigating Officer in
connection with Crime No.100/2019
within 15 days from the date of release
of the order and shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) each with a surety
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.

(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way, any
witness.

(iii) The petitioners shall mark their
attendance before the concerned

Station House Officer once in a week
between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.,
till filing of the final report.

6

(iv) In the event of change of address, the
petitioners to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.

(v) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioners, shall
result in cancellation of bail.

Any observation made herein shall not be taken as

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case

Sd/-

JUDGE

VP

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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