SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Santosh vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6839/2017
BETWEEN:
Santosh
S/o Late Ramanna
Aged about 28 years
Driver, R/at Vijayapura
Chikkamagaluru City-67 … Petitioner

(By Sri Pratheep K C, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka
Rep. by Basavanahalli Police Station
Chikkamagaluru District

Represented by its
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru – 560 001 … Respondent

(By Sri K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.57/2016 of Basavanahalli Police Station,
Chikkamagaluru District for the offence punishable under
2

Sections 498A, 323, 316 and 304B read with Section 34 of
IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

This criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:

ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

The petitioner is accused No.1 in S.C.No.102/2016 on the

file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru.

2. On 27.02.2016, a woman by name Vanajakshi

made a complaint that, she had given her daughter-

Anitha, in marriage to the petitioner. The marriage took

place about one and a half year prior to filing of the

complaint. On 26.02.2016, she received a telephone call

from her son-in-law i.e., the petitioner and came to know

that her daughter Anitha had been admitted to the hospital

at Chikkamagaluru. Immediately, she rushed to the

hospital and came to know from her daughter that on

24.02.2016, at about 6.00 pm, the petitioner and his

mother, namely, Savithri picked up quarrel with her and
3

assaulted her. By that time, she was pregnant of six and

half months. On 27.02.2016 there was no fetal movement

in the womb. The doctor who examined her told that the

pregnancy had to be terminated.

3. On this complaint, police initially registered the

FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323

and 316 of IPC. On the advice of the doctors at

Chikkamagaluru, Anitha was shifted to a hospital at

Hassan on 27.02.2016. Even the doctors at Hassan

advised that Anitha must be admitted to hospital at

Bengaluru and therefore, she was brought to Victoria

Hospital, Bengaluru, where she died. Therefore, the police

included the offence under Sections 304B of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. Heard the petitioner’s counsel and the learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.

5. From the complaint itself, it is possible to make

out that after the deceased Anitha was admitted to the
4

hospital at Chikkamagaluru, it appears that she was in a

condition to speak. The statements given by one Santosh,

brother of the deceased, Smt. Sudha and Sri Praveen

disclose that deceased was able to speak when she was in

hospital at Hassan. The statements of these witnesses

show that the deceased herself told these witnesses about

the assault on her by this petitioner. The post mortem

report discloses the presence of contusion over the lower

abdomen of the deceased. Though from the statements of

these witnesses, it can be said that there is material with

regard to assault on the deceased by the petitioner, it is

not forthcoming as to why the police officer did not find it

necessary to record the statement of deceased while she

was in hospital. Therefore, in view of this anomaly, it can

be said that there are no prima-facie materials with regard

to real cause of death of the deceased Anitha. Even the

post mortem report does not disclose the cause of death.

In these circumstances, I come to the conclusion that the

petitioner can be admitted to bail.

5

6. Learned Sessions Judge has observed in his

order that there are chances of the witnesses being

influenced by this petitioner and therefore, to see that

there will take place a fair trial, the petitioner needs to be

subjected to stringent condition in addition to other usual

conditions. Hence, the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be released
on bail in connection with Crime No.57/2016
registered by Basavanahalli Police Station,
subject to his executing a bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and
furnishing two sureties for the likesum to the
satisfaction of the trial Court. Petitioner is also
subjected to following conditions:

i. He shall not tamper with the evidence
collected by the investigating officer

ii. He shall not directly or indirectly threaten
the witnesses. If any of the witnesses
makes a complaint stating that, the
petitioner tried to influence them or
6

persuade them to give false evidence in the
Court, the bail granted today, stands
cancelled.

iii. He shall regularly appear before the Court
for trial, without fail.

Sd/-

JUDGE
KMV/-

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