Karnataka High Court Karibasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8149 OF 2013 Between:
Aged about 35 years,
Aged about 34 years,
Petitioners 1 and 2 are
Resident of H.Kalapanahalli
Village – 577 001,
Davanagere Taluk and District. …Petitioners (By Sri: M.Vishwajith Rai, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka,
By Rural Police Station,
Davanagere, Represented by its SPP, 2
High Court Building,
Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondent (By Sri: B.Vishweswaraiah, High Court Government Pleader)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No.343/2013 of Davanagere Rural Police Station, Davanagere, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
The petitioners are said to be brothers who were married to two sisters namely Girija and Shilpa. Girija is said to have borne a child to petitioner No.1 and that both the marriages had taken place on 14.2.2009. It transpires that the dead body of Girija along with the child was found in the Bhadra canal. It was alleged by the father-in-law of the petitioners that she had committed suicide on account of the constant ill-treatment by the petitioners and it was also alleged that Shilpa in turn had also committed suicide. 3
However, her body was yet to be traced. There is no indication that she was dead. However, on the basis of the complaint, the petitioners have been taken into custody on allegations of commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The petitioners having approached the Court below seeking bail, the Court below has rejected the same on the ground that there are sufficient materials to presume the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged crime and that the Court below has prima- facie found that the petitioners were involved in the commission of the alleged crime. However, there is no supporting material to substantiate the prima-facie opinion of the Court below. It is also noticed that Shilpa is not even found to be dead as there is no trace of her body. Therefore, the suspicion that the petitioners had indeed committed any such offences is only on the basis of the complaint 4
lodged by the father-in-law of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the complainant has not even mentioned that there was ill-treatment to his daughter prior to her death. In that view of the matter, the petitioners have made out a case for enlargement on bail. The petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing self-bond for Rs.50,000/- each, with a solvent surety each, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Court below, subject to the following conditions. (i) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses. (ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer. (iii) The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly. 5
(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court below is at liberty to pass suitable orders.