SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Krishna Kumari vs State Of Karnataka By on 9 July, 2019







1. Krishna Kumari,
W/o Rama Krishna Mohan,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.G6,
Sparrow Wings Apartment,
Indira Gandhi Street, 5th Main,
Uday Nagar II Stage,
A Narayanapura,
Bangalore – 560 016.

2. Yamini Saraswathi,
W/o Pamarathi Dinesh,
D/o Rama Krishna Mohan,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.8, Ramanjunappa Layout,
4th Cross, MEG Layout,
B. Narayanapura,
Bengaluru – 560 016. … Petitioners

(By Sri Hashmath Pasha, Senior Advocate for
Sri Kaleem Sabir, Advocate)


State of Karnataka by
Mahadevapura Police Station,

Bengaluru – 560 006
(Represented by Learned
State Public Prosecutor)
Bengaluru – 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Criminal Procedure Code, praying to enlarge the
petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.173/2019 of Mahadevapura Police Station,
Bangalore for the offences p/u/s 498A, 304B r/w 34 of
SectionIPC and Sections 3, 4 of D.P. Act.

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


The petitioners are seeking to be enlarged on bail

in the event of their arrest pursuant to the proceedings

in Crime No.173/2019 for the offences under Sections

498-A, Section304-B r/w 34 SectionIPC and Sections 3 and Section4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. The petitioner no.1/accused no.2 is the

mother-in-law of the deceased and petitioner no.2/

accused no.3 is the sister-in-law of the deceased.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased

Raavi Jaya Madhavi was married to accused no.1 –

Venkata Subramanya who was working as a Software

Engineer in IBM, Bangalore. It is stated that there was

demand for dowry at the time of marriage. It is further

stated that accused no.1 and the deceased settled down

in Bangalore and were residing in Bangalore after

March, 2018. It is further stated that certain differences

of opinion crept up amongst the spouses. On the

intervening night of 13/14.04.2019, at about 1.17 a.m.,

information was received from the mother-in-law of the

deceased that the deceased died after having hanged

herself to the ceiling fan. A complaint was lodged, FIR

was registered and investigation is in progress.

4. Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that

admittedly, accused no.3 was a software engineer

married and staying separately at B. Narayanapura and

was not residing with accused no.1. He further submits

that as regards accused no.2, it is stated that accused

no.2 was a permanent resident of Andhra Pradesh and

residing in West Godavari District. It is contended that

the reasons for difference of opinion also appears to be

alleged relationship between the deceased and one

Chandrashekar. The mother of the deceased had filed a

complaint and FIR has been registered on 12.10.2018,

which is self-explanatory. It is contended that in view of

the fact that both accused nos.2 and 3 were residing

separately, story has been created to include them

falsely in this case.

5. Looking into the factual matrix and noticing

that accused no.1 who is the husband of the deceased

is in custody and subjected himself to custodial

interrogation and also noting that petitioner

no.2/accused no.3 is a software engineer and staying

separately with her husband and that petitioner

no.1/acused no.2, the mother-in-law of the deceased

was also a permanent resident of West Godavari District

and is aged about 60 years, no case is made out for

custodial interrogation of the present petitioners.

Needless to state that co-operation with the

investigation would be ensured by imposing stringent


6. In the result, the bail petition filed by the

petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and

the petitioner is enlarged on bail in the event of his

arrest in Crime No.173/2019 for the offences under

Sections 498-A, Section304-B r/w 34 SectionIPC and Sections 3 and Section4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act subject to the following


(i) The petitioners shall appear in person
before the Investigating Officer in
connection with Crime No.173/2019
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

(iii) The petitioners shall physically present
themselves and mark their attendance
before the concerned Station House
Officer/s once in a week between
10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till filing of
the final report.

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

(v) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioner, 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.

No order is called for with respect to

I.A.No.1/2019 in the light of disposing of the petition,

accordingly the said application is disposed of as having

being rendered redundant.




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