SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Gadavari W/O Bhimasingh … vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2017

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100594/2017

BETWEEN:

SMT.GODAVARI
W/O BHIMASINGH RAJPUT
AGE: 59 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O JAYANAGAR MUDHOL
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI V.G.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE CPI, MUDHOL
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL
TO THE PETITIONER IN MUDHOL POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.253 OF 2016 AND IN C.C.NO.1899 OF 2016 PENDING
:2:

ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL
REGISTERED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 498A, 504, 323, 302 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This is the petition filed by petitioner-accused No.2

under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory bail

to direct the respondent-police to release her on bail in the

event of her arrest for the alleged offence punishable

under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 302 r/w Section 34 of

I.P.C. registered in respondent-police station Crime

No.253/2016 and after the demise of the injured and as

per the request made by the police, an offence under

Section 302 of I.P.C. was also inserted in the case.

2. The allegations as per the complaint that on

04.09.2016 when the son of petitioner and his wife Ashwini

were in the house, at that time kerosene stove was burst

while cooking and the son of petitioner and his wife have

sustained burn injuries. Immediately they have been
:3:

shifted to hospital for treatment. But unfortunately

daughter-in-law of the petitioner died due to injuries on

13.09.2016. In the meantime on 06.09.2016 the brother

of the deceased had filed a complaint against the

petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came

to be registered for the said offences.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and learned High

Court Govt. Pleader for the respondent-state.

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the

petition, FIR and complaint and also other materials

produced so also the bail order by the learned Sessions

Judge rejecting the bail petition.

5. Looking to the complaint averments and also

the other materials produced in the case by learned

counsel for the petitioner, it is no doubt true so far as the

petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned also there are some

allegations in the complaint, but these allegations only to
:4:

the effect that the present petitioner/accused No.2 was

also giving ill-treatment to the deceased stating that she

does not know to prepare the food properly and she was

not providing food to her. Except this allegation in the

complaint, there is no allegation so far as the petitioner/

accused No.2. Looking to the complaint averments even

with regard to the allegation of pouring kerosene and

litting fire is only against accused No.1. The petitioner/

accused No.2 contended in the bail petition that she was

innocent and not involved in committing the said offence.

She is ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be

imposed by the Court. Looking to the materials placed on

record so also she is a woman, aged about 59 years as

mentioned in the cause title of the petition, which fact is

not disputed by the other side, I am of the opinion that by

imposing reasonable conditions, she can be admitted to

bail.

6. Hence, petition is allowed. Petitioner-accused

No.2 is ordered to be released on bail. The respondent-
:5:

police are hereby directed to enlarge the petitioner-

accused No.2 on bail in the event of her arrest for the

alleged offence registered in respondent-police station

Crime No.253/2016, subject to the following conditions:

a. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of arresting authority.
b. Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses directly or indirectly.
c. Petitioner shall appear before the concerned
Investigating Officer as and when called for
interrogation.

d. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned
Court within 30 days from the date of this order
and to execute the personal bond and the surety
bond.

Sd/-

JUDGE

CLK

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