Karnataka High Court Rathnamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION No.45/2014
Aged about 45 years,
Teacher in Shanthiniketan
Native of Kandenahalli
Presently Residing at
Baragur Village-572 137.
Aged about 42 years,
Sira Taluk-572 137.
3. Sanneeramma @ Putteramma,
Aged about 41 years,
Sira Taluk-572 137.
S/o. Gonihalli Kariyanna,
Aged about 45 years,
Sira Taluk-572 137. .. PETITIONERS (By Sri. Aruna Shyam. M, Adv.)
The State of Karnataka,
Rep. by its
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bangalore-560 001. .. RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This criminal petition is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr. No.127/2013 of Patanayakanahalli P.S., Tumkur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following :
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 6 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the respondent police that in the event of their arrest, they be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.127/2013. Later, charge sheet was filed for the 3
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the father of the deceased. His daughter was married to accused No.1 about seven years prior to the date of incident. Accused Nos.1 to 6 were not happy about the marriage of the deceased with the accused No.1. The accused persons started harassing and ill treating the deceased. On 21.11.2013, the deceased has been killed by the accused persons. On the basis of the said complaint, the case was registered by the respondent police against the accused persons for the offences referred above.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 6 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners, during the course of the arguments, submitted that even according to the investigation materials collected by the investigating officer, the materials go to show that the accused Nos.3 to 5 were married and they were residing at their husband’s 4
house. With regard to their involvement in commission of the alleged offence, no prima facie material is placed by the prosecution except a vague allegation that the accused persons were also giving ill treatment to the deceased. It is submitted that accused No.1-husband and accused No.2- mother-in-law of the deceased against whom serious allegations are made have assaulted on the deceased and they were in custody. So far as the petitioners are concerned, no such incriminating materials are placed by the prosecution. It is submitted that the investigation of the case is completed and the charge sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with section 34 of IPC. Hence, it is submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be admitted to anticipatory bail.
5. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State, during the course of the arguments, submitted that in the complaint as well as the other materials collected by the investigating officer during investigation, there are allegations against the present petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners are 5
also responsible for the death of the deceased. Hence, he submitted that the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail.
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition and the other materials on record. Looking to the averments made in the complaint of the father of the deceased in so far as the petitioners are concerned, it is mentioned that they were also used to give ill treatment to the deceased. But there is no mention as to the nature of ill treatment given by the petitioners and on what date, the deceased was ill treated. No particulars are forthcoming in the complaint. The allegations in the complaint are that the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have assaulted her with hands and stone on her head and all over the body and thereby committed the murder of the deceased. No such serious allegations are made against the petitioners. It is seen that the charge sheet copy has been produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners and investigation of the case is completed. Therefore, looking to the materials on record, by imposing stringent conditions for securing the presence of the petitioners before the investigating officer or 6
before the concerned court, they can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
7. In the result, the petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 302 registered in Crime No.127/2013, subject to the following conditions: I. Each petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) and shall offer one surety for the likesum to the concerned Magistrate Court.
II. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so.
III. The petitioners shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly. IV. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.