CRL.P.No.100936/2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100936/2018
BETWEEN:
1 PRAKASH S/O. FAKIRAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,
R/O. KOUJALAGAI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
2 SONAWWA W/O. FAKIRAPPA BHAJANTRI,
AGE 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK.
DIST. BELAGAVI.
3 FAKIRAPPA BHAJANTRI
AGE 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURAL COOLIE,
R/O. KOUJALAGI, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.J.PEERAJADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
KULGOD POLICE STATION,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD.
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP)
CRL.P.No.100936/2018
:2:
—
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE ON BAIL, IN THE
EVENT OF THEIR ARREST BY THE KULGOD POLICE IN
CONNECTION WITH KULGOD POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.127/2018 OF THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 498(A),
323, 324, 504 R/W. SEC. 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
At the instance of one Smt. Renuka @ Sharada W/o.
Prakash Bhajantri the complainant/respondent police
have registered a complaint against the present petitioners
in their station in Crime No.127/2018 for the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 324, 504 r/w.
Section 34 of IPC. The summary of the said complaint is
that, the complainant is the wife of the present petitioner
No.1 having married to him about 15 years back. After 3
or 4 years, after her marriage her husband and the
petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are her In-laws started
subjecting her to cruelty by accusing her and objecting
her for no valid reasons and on trivial matters like the
CRL.P.No.100936/2018
:3:
complainant does not know as to how to cook and to carry
their family occupation. The complainant has also stated
that the same being the case on 19.05.2018, she was
objected to by her mother-in-law i.e. petitioner No.2 for
the reason that the complainant had not covered her face
with the Saree she was wearing. The explanation given by
the petitioner that she was carrying the water filled pot on
her head and that she would abide by the instruction of
her mother-in-law could not satisfy the said mother-in-law
who in turn assaulted her daughter in law i.e., the
complainant. It is with these accusations the complainant
has lodged the complaint against the present petitioner for
the alleged offences.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his
argument submitted that a bare reading of the complaint
by itself go to show that the allegations
leveled against the petitioners are all trivial and baseless.
An alleged objection by the mother-in-law to the extent
that, the daughter-in-law does not know how to cook
CRL.P.No.100936/2018
:4:
properly would not attract Section 498A of IPC. He further
submits that, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are aged people
under the care and protection of petitioner No.1 and arrest
of them made if any by the complainant-police would
cause great injustice to them. He also submitted that their
apprehension is not required for any investigation
purposes.
3. Learned HCGP who is appearing for the
respondent in his argument submitted that, a reading of
the complaint itself go to show that the petitioners being
the husband and in-laws of the complainant have been ill-
treating her. No further material than a bonafide sincere
statement of the victim/complainant is required at this
stage to arrive at an opinion that the petitioners have
committed the alleged offences. Expressing his
apprehension that the accused may flee from justice and
may not co-operate with the investigation, the learned
HCGP prays for rejection of the petition.
CRL.P.No.100936/2018
:5:
4. A reading of the complaint at this stage would
go to show that the main accusation of the complainant
against her in-laws or that they were objecting to her
routine activities alleging that she does not know how to
cook properly and is not continuing the family traditional
practices properly. The accusation against petitioner No.1,
the husband of the complainant is that he was standing in
support of his parents rather than coming to the help of
the complainant. In this background, whether a mere
objection for the alleged non-expertising household work
would itself constitute a cruelty under Section 498-A has
to be decided after conducting a trial, if it is held, taking
into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case.
Confining to the material placed before the Court at this
stage, it cannot be said that there is any requirement for
apprehension of the petitioners for any investigation
purposes. The alleged offences are not heinous and not
punishable with the death or life imprisonment. The
apprehension of the prosecution that the accused may
CRL.P.No.100936/2018
:6:
flee from justice can be checked by imposing reasonable
restrictions. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
In the event the petitioners/accused persons are
apprehended by the Kulgod Town Police Station in Crime
No.127/2018 for the offence punishable under Section
498(A), 323, 324, 504 r/w. Section 34 of IPC, they shall be
enlarged on the relief of anticipatory bail subject to the
conditions that;
i. They shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of `20,000/- each (Rupees Twenty
Thousand Only) with two sureties for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging
Authority. No single surety can give his
surety ship for more than two accused.
ii. They shall appear before the Investigating
Officer on every first and fourth Wednesday
of every month between 09.00 a.m. and
1.00 p.m. and mark their attendance till
the charge sheet is filed.
CRL.P.No.100936/2018
:7:
iii. They shall not hamper or tamper the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
iv. They shall voluntarily surrender before the
jurisdictional Magistrate within three weeks
from today and may file an application for
regular bail. In such an event, the said
Court to dispose of the said bail application
not being influenced by the order passed in
this matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*Svh/-
