:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102389/2017
BETWEEN
NARAYAN S/O RAVAJI SALAGUDE
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: ASANGI, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S KADADEVAR, ADV.)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH BANAHATTI POLICE STATION.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND
GRANT REGULAR BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN SESSIONS
CASE NO. 1102 OF 2017 (BANAHATTI P.S. CRIME NO. 2
OF 2017) ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT TO SIT AT JAMAKHANDI
FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 306
READ WITH 34 OF IPC.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
in connection with Banahatti P.S. in Crime No.2/2017
for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Since
from the date of his arrest, the petitioner is in judicial
custody. Therefore, the learned counsel for the
petitioner is praying for enlargement of the petitioner
on regular bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned SPP for the respondent – State.
3. Whereas, in the complaint, it reveals that
the marriage of the deceased Malashree was
performed with the accused No.1 for about 6 years
back, as per their customs prevailed. Subsequent to
:3:
the marriage, she got issues, a daughter and a son.
For the reason known, that there was some
altercation took between the deceased as well as the
family members i.e., her husband, who arrayed as
accused No.1, her father-in-law, arrayed as accused
No.2 (present petitioner) and the brother-in-law of the
deceased i.e., the accused No.3 started to harass her
physically and mentally, stating that she does not
know how to cook and also she does not do the
household work properly and due to which she
committed suicide by hanging. The same has been
transpired in the complaint and accordingly an FIR
came to be registered by the Police and thereafter
proceeded with the case for investigation.
4. Whereas, the learned counsel for the
petitioner during the course of arguments contended
that the petitioner, who arrayed as accused No.2 and
he being the father-in-law of the deceased, he did not
give any harassment to the deceased. But the
:4:
petitioner being an innocent person, he has not at all
committed the alleged offences and moreover the
allegations made in the complaint, it does not
constitute the ingredients for the alleged offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC. But on perusal
of the entire materials on record, there is no specific
overt act against the petitioner, extending harassment
to the deceased and also lead her to commit suicide.
But the Police apprehended the petitioner and since
from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in judicial
custody. Whereas, the petitioner’s family consisting
his wife and he is suffering from old aged ailments
and also required to be taken treatment continuously
and if the petitioner is supposed to kept behind the
bar for a longer period, his health will be deteriorated
and his family will be ruined in the society. It is
further contended that the petitioner is ready to abide
by any terms and conditions imposed by this Court,
while granting bail to him. Therefore, on all these
:5:
grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner praying
to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned SPP for the
respondent – State during the course of arguments
contended by reiterating the averments made in the
complaint and also reflection of the averments in the
FIR recorded by the Police relating to the Crime
No.2/2017 of Banahatti PS, alleging that the petitioner
given physical as well as mental harassment to his
daughter-in-law i.e., the deceased and due to which
she committed suicide by hanging at the scene of
crime. As the deceased was given in marriage with the
1st accused and she had a daughter and a son, but for
the reasons that she was not been doing household
work properly and she was not knowing to cook, on
these grounds, the petitioner harassed the deceased
and due to which she committed suicide by hanging
and the petitioner is the cause for the death of the
deceased. Therefore, it appears that there are prima
:6:
facie materials against the petitioner and accordingly,
the learned SPP prayed to reject the bail petition, as
the petitioner does not deserve for the bail as sought
for.
6. As already stated in detail regarding the
contention taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, that the marriage of the deceased was
performed with the 1st accused for about 6 years back
and subsequent to marriage, she lead happy marital
life in her husband’s house. She also got a daughter
and a son out of the wedlock. But there was an
allegation made in the complaint that as she was not
doing the household work properly and was not
knowing to cook, the petitioner started to harass the
deceased physically and mentally and due to which
she committed suicide by hanging. Further
subsequent to registration of crime, the Investigation
taken up the case for investigation and laid the charge
sheet in S.C. No.1102/2017 which is pending on the
:7:
file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot
sitting at Jamkhandi relating to the case in Crime
No.2/2017 of Banahatti P.S. for the alleged offences.
However, charge sheet has been laid. Therefore, at
this stage, it is said that it does not require for any
detailed discussion, while considering the bail petition
filed by the petitioner, as there are substance in the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
seeking for the relief of bail. Whereas, the learned SPP
submits that if the petitioner is supposed to be
released on bail, certainly he would come in the way
of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence.
As this apprehension expressed by the learned SPP,
could be curtailed by imposing certain suitable
conditions to safeguard the interest of the
prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons as
well as under the circumstances of the case, I am of
the considered opinion that the petitioner is deserving
for bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
:8:
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is
hereby allowed, subject to the following conditions:
(1) The petitioner shall execute a bond in
a sum of Rs.50,000/- with like sum
surety to the satisfaction of the I
Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Bagalkot, sitting at Jamkhandi, as Crime No.2/2017where the case in *S.C. No.1102/2017
is pending.
(2) The petitioner shall not tamper or
hamper the case of prosecution
witnesses.
(3) The petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court on all the dates of
hearing without fail.
(4) The petitioner shall not indulge with
any other criminal activities
henceforth.
*Corrected vide Court order
dated 12.12.2017.
Sd/-
(KSJ)
:9:
If the petitioner violates any of the above
conditions, the bail order shall automatically stands
ceased.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh
