1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9943/2017

BETWEEN

K. EKANTHAPPA
S/O LATE GURUSIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GANDHINAGARA VILLAGE,
DAVANGERE TALUKA,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.
…PETITIONER
(By Sri DINESHKUMAR RAO K, ADVOCATE)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001.
(REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001)
…RESPONDENT
(By Sri K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.269/2017
(C.C.NO.2485/2017) OF DAVANAGERE RURAL POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 302,
304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT.
2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner-accused No.2

under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking grant of anticipatory

bail directing the respondent-Police to release the

petitioner-accused No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest

for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302,

304(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act registered by the respondent-

Police in Crime No.269/2017.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused No.2 and also learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

3. One Smt. Kusuma is the deceased in this case and

the present petitioner-accused No.2 is the father-in-law of

the deceased. The brother of the deceased one

C.N.Hanumanthappa is the complainant, who lodged the
3

complaint making allegations against all the accused

persons that they were giving ill-treatment and

harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring dowry

from her parental place and in that regard they gave both

physical and mental harassment to the deceased and,

thereafter, they committed the murder of the deceased

Kusuma. Accordingly, on the basis of the complaint,

initially FIR came to be registered against all the four

accused persons for the offences punishable under

Sections 498(A), 302, 304(B) read with Section 34 of IPC

and also Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Looking to the prosecution material, earlier the

present petitioner-accused No.2 along with other accused

persons approached this Court seeking their release on bail

by filing a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The Court

after considering the merits of the case allowed the

petition in-part and accused Nos.2 and 3 were granted

anticipatory bail, whereas the petition in respect of the
4

present petitioner-accused No.2 came to be rejected, for

which, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

accused No.2 made a submission that after completing the

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in the case.

Insofar as the present petitioner-accused No.2 is

concerned, charge sheet is only for the alleged offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, he submitted that

the other offences under Sections 302 and 304(B) of IPC

which were there at the crime stage even against the

present petitioner were not at all there in the charge

sheet. Hence, he submits that in view of the filing of the

charge sheet after completing the investigation and as the

petitioner-accused No.2 is aged 66 years, he is prepared to

abide by any reasonable conditions that may be imposed

by this Court. Hence, the petition may be allowed.

5. The same is opposed by the learned High Court

Government Pleader on the ground that during
5

investigation, the petitioner-accused No.2 was not

available to the Investigating Officer for interrogation and,

therefore, he submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 is

not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Perusing the materials on record, the rejection of the

earlier bail petition was because of the reason that the

alleged offences under Sections 302 and 304B of IPC were

also against the present petitioner as per the FIR, but after

completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer

made it clear that the only offence said to have been

committed by the present petitioner-accused No.2 is under

Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act. The present petitioner is aged 66 years as

shown in the cause-title, which fact is not seriously

disputed by the prosecution and the investigation

completed and charge sheet is also filed. The petitioner-

accused No.2 has undertaken that he is ready to abide by any
6

reasonable conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

Hence, it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The respondent-

Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioner-accused

No.2 on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with

Crime No.269/2017 registered for the above said offences,

subject to the following conditions:

i) The petitioner-accused No.2 shall

execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and

shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the arresting authority.

ii) The petitioner-accused No.2 shall not

tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses,

directly or indirectly.

iii) The petitioner-accused No.2 has to make

himself available before the Investigating
7

Officer for interrogation, as and when called for

and to cooperate with the further investigation.

iv) The petitioner-accused No.2 has to

appear before the concerned Court within 30

days from the date of this order and to execute

the personal bond and the surety bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

mv