1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200968/2018
Between:

1. Setteppa S/o Bhima Gunjyal
Age: 58 Years, Occ: Pvt. Service
R/o Devarnavadagi
Tq. Sindagi, Dist: Vijayapur
Now at Stapur, Nashik

2. Mahadevi W/o Setteppa Gunjyal
Age: 55 Years, Occ: Household work
R/o Devarnavadagi
Tq. Sindagi, Dist: Vijayapur
Now at Stapur, Nashik

3. Sheela D/o Setteppa Gunjyal,
Age: 30 Years, Occ: Household work
R/o Devaranavadagi,
Tq. Sindagi, Dist: Vijayapur
Now at Stapur, Nashik

… Petitioners
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanshetti, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
R/by Addl. SPP Kalaburagi
Bench-585106
2

(Through Almel P.S.
Dist: Vijayapur-584106)
… Respondent
(By Sri P.S. Patil, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to grant the anticipatory bail to the
petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4 and direct the Almel Police
to release the petitioners/ accused Nos.2 to 4 on bail in the
event of their arrest in CC No.182/2018 (Almel Police
Station FIR (Crime) No.81/2018) for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B R/w Section
34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, pending on the file of Addl. Senior Civil
Judge JMFC Court at Sindagi.

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

ORDER

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 respectively

in Crime No.81/2018 of Almel P.S., Vijayapur, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 R/w

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and after completion of

the investigation, charge sheet has been filed under

Sections 498A, 302, 304B R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal

code and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
3

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, the

complainant’s daughter Smt. Divya was given in marriage

to accused No.1, a resident of Devar Navadagi village,

Sindagi Taluk. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of

accused No.1 and accused No.4 is the sister of accused

No.1. The accused persons used to demand the deceased

to bring gold and money from her parental house. In view

of the physical and mental harassment meted to her by

the accused, she had come and stayed with her parents.

However, about 15 days prior to the date of incident, she

was taken back to the house of the accused and thereafter

she started residing in the house of accused No.4. On

11.04.2018 at about 3:00 p.m., the mother-in-law of the

deceased informed the complainant over phone that her

daughter Smt. Divya has sustained burn injuries in the

house of accused No.4 and that she has been shifted to

Sindagi Government Hospital. Immediately, the

complainant and others left for Sindagi. Again they were

informed that the injured has been shifted to Vijayapura

Government Hospital. The complainant and others went to
4

Vijayapura Government Hospital and saw that the injured

had sustained burn injuries on her face, chest, hands,

abdomen and legs. Later, the injured was shifted and

admitted at Gulbarga Government Hospital, wherein she

succumbed to the injuries on the intervening night of

14/15-04-2018.

3. Initially, case was registered under sections

498A and 307 R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against

accused Nos.1 to 4. Charge sheet was filed for the offences

punishable under Section 498A, 302 and 304B R/w Section

34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for the respondent/State.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that there are no allegations in the

first information report that the deceased was subjected to
5

cruelty on account of any demand for dowry, soon before

the incident. He submits that even according to the

charge sheet witnesses, namely C.Ws.12 to 14, accused

Nos.1 and 2 had left their house to go to Nasik prior to the

incident and on the date of incident i.e., 11.04.2018, when

the incident took place the other accused persons were

along with the said witnesses. He further submits that the

investigation officer has filed a requisition before the

learned Magistrate to delete Section 302 of Indian Penal

Code. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition.

6. On the other hand, learned High Court

Government Pleader contended that according to the

complainant when she enquired the victim in the hospital,

the victim has informed her that her mother-in-law-

Accused No.3 and sister-in-law-Accused No.4 have poured

kerosene and set fire to her. He submits that all the

accused are responsible for causing the death of the

deceased and therefore they are not entitled for the relief

they have sought in this petition.

6

7. That the first information report discloses that

the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was

performed about two years prior to the incident. After the

marriage, the deceased was staying in Nasik along with

her husband and parents in law and later in view of the

torture meted to the deceased, she went and stayed with

her parents and thereafter about 15 days prior to the date

of incident she went to the village of accused No.4 i.e.,

Devar Navadagi and started staying in the house of

accused No.4. On 01.04.2018 at about 2:30 p.m. she

sustained burn injuries, which was informed to the

complainant by accused No.3 and when complainant and

others went to the hospital, they saw that the deceased

had sustained burn injuries and on enquiry with the

deceased, she informed the complainant that Accused

Nos.3 and 4 poured kerosene and set fire to her.

8. However, the investigation material reveal that

according to the statement of the witnesses, namely

C.W.12-Anitha and C.W.13-Puthalabai, prior to the date of
7

incident, both accused Nos.1 and 2 had gone to Nasik and

accused Nos.3 and 4 were along with the said witnesses

when the said incident took place and at that time they

have seen the deceased coming out of the house having

sustained burn injuries. It is also seen that the

investigation officer has given a requisition to delete

Section 302 of Indian penal Code, which is evident from

the order sheet dated 13.07.2018 in C.C.No.182/2018.

9. Considering the above facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 may be enlarged on

anticipatory bail by imposing conditions. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 shall be enlarged

on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.81/2018 of
8

Almel P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, 302, 304B R/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the

following conditions;

i. The petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 to 4 shall

appear before the jurisdictional

Magistrate within a period of two weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order and they shall execute personal

bond each for a sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with two

sureties for the likesum to the

satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.

ii. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 shall

not either directly or indirectly tamper

the prosecution witnesses and they shall

not hamper the case of the prosecution

in any manner.

9

iii. The petitioners/ Accused Nos.2 to 4

shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial

Court without the prior permission of the

learned Sessions Judge.

iv. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 shall

be regular in attending the Court

proceedings.

v. The petitioners/Accused Nos.2 to 4 shall

co-operate with the further investigation,

if any.

If any of the bail conditions are violated, the State is

at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BL