SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2014

Karnataka High Court Manjunatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.67 OF 2014 BETWEEN:

1. MANJUNATHA

S/O.HANUMANTHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O.KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR VILLAGE

BHADRAVATHI TALUKA

SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 301.

2. MADHU @ RAMACHANDRA

S/O.HANUMANTHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O.KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR VILLAGE

BHADRAVATHI TALUKA

SHIMOGA DISTRICT – 577 301.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.RAVINDRA B.DESHPANDE, ADV.,) AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

PAPER TOWN POLICE STATION

BHADRAVATHI – 577 301.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.B.VISHWESHWARAIAH, HCGP) -2-

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CR.NO.132/2013 OF PAPER TOWN P.S., SHIMOGA, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B, R/W.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT. THIS CRL. P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: – ORDER

The present petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 3. The allegations are that these petitioners of whom petitioner No.1 is the husband of one late Shashikala and petitioner No.2 is the brother-in-law of said Shashikala. Shashikala and petitioner No.1 were married about nine months prior to the date of complaint. It transpires that, Shashikala had, against the wishes of the family of the petitioners, been to her sister’s house. When she returned, she was abused by all the family members including the present petitioners. It is further allegation that on such attack on her, she had gone into depression and run into the bath room and locked herself from inside and set herself on fire. It is thereafter she was admitted to the hospital and was alive for several days. -3-

2. It is further stated that on the basis of the dying declaration these petitioners and others were implicated for the offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

3. Though accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 have been enlarged on bail, the Courts below have rejected the application of the present petitioners on the ground that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with Shashikala was of recent origin and that in view of the said legal position that in cases such as the present one grant of bail should not be liberally considered and it is on that ground that the applications have been rejected.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that the allegation is not one of dowry harassment, but on the footing that Shashikala immediately prior to the incident had been abused on the footing that she had left the house without the permission and therefore it would at the best be an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC and could not be construed as one under Section 498A of IPC and -4-

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and hence seeks reconsideration of the case of the petitioners.

5. The Courts below having considered the justification in granting bail to accused Nos.2, 4 and 5, ought not to have treated the petitioners merely because petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is a male member of the family and the brother-in-law of the deceased. Pending trial and the establishment of the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, in the circumstances of the case on their furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- each with two solvent sureties for the likesum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court, subject to the following conditions.

(i) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses.

-5-

(ii) They 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.

(iv) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.

SD/-

JUDGE

AP/-

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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