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
