SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sanju @ Dhareppa Raosab Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2014

Karnataka High Court Sanju @ Dhareppa Raosab Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2014 BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100552/2014 BETWEEN:

SANJU @ DHAREPPA RAOSAB PATIL

AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

R/O. DARUR-591261,

TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELGAUM.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(ATHANI PS)

BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

ADVOCATE GENERAL’S OFFICE

HIGH COURT OF BENCH PREMISES

DHARWAD – 580001.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN ATHANI P.S. CRIME NO.48/2013 IN S.C.NO.322/2013 V- 2

ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BELGAUM, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A & 306 OF IPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent – State. Perused the records.

2. The brief factual matrix of this case are that the Athani police have investigated the case against the accused – petitioner in Crime No.48/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of I.P.C. It is seen that after due investigation, charge sheet is filed against the petitioner. The father-in-law of petitioner by name Dharigond Patil has filed a complaint stating that his daughter by name Sunitha @ Sonavva was given in marriage to petitioner about six years prior to the incident and they were blessed with two 3

children. It is alleged that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with some other lady. After coming to know about this fact, the deceased Sunitha started quarreling with her husband often. In this context, it is alleged that the petitioner was illtreating and harassing the deceased and also suspected the fidelity of Sunitha stating that the two children were not born to him. In this particular context, it is said that on 05.02.2013 at about 6.30 p.m. the complainant has received an information that the deceased Sunitha has poured kerosene on herself and also on her children and lit fire. As a result, all of them succumbed to the injuries later. The illegal act of petitioner has driven the deceased to commit suicide. On these allegations, police have conducted the investigation. The statement of witnesses, recorded by police, discloses that, on the date of incident deceased Sunitha and petitioner’s mother by name Bouravva have done household work in the house upto 5.45 p.m. At about 5.45 p.m. petitioner’s mother went outside to attend the nature call, when she came back she saw Sunitha 4

and her two children, who were on flames. She has categorically stated that on that particular day her son was not in the house and he had been for coolie work i.e., for the purpose of loading sugarcane to the tractor. The statements of witnesses including the statement of complainant and other relative witnesses reiterate the same factual aspects. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he had some illicit intimacy with some lady. Therefore, being frustrated with the said act of petitioner, Sunitha has committed suicide. At this stage, it is very hard to infer that the petitioner had an intention to drive the deceased Sunitha to commit suicide. Hence, in my opinion, this fact has to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial. At this stage, it is very difficult to ascertain as to what was exactly transpired on that day and why said Sunitha has committed suicide. Under the above said circumstances and considering that the petitioner was not present in the house at the time of incident, I am of the opinion that the petitioner 5

is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, I pass the following-

ORDER

Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail, subject to the following conditions: i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of trial Court. ii) Petitioner shall not indulge himself in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iii) Petitioner shall attend the Court on every date of hearing without fail, unless prevented by any genuine cause.

6

iv) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against him is disposed of. Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm/

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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