Karnataka High Court Smt. Gangamma vs The State Of Karnataka By on 15 April, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1946/2014
Aged about 55 years,
Occ: Household Work,
R/o No.68, Bhovi Colony,
Halebeedu Hobli, Belur Taluk,
Hassan District-573 121. .. PETITIONER (By Sri. Ravindra. B. Deshpande, Adv.) AND:
The State of Karnataka by
Halebeedu Police Station,
Hassan District-573 121. ..RESPONDENT (By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.71/2014 of Halebeedu P.S., Hassan, for the offences P/U/S 498(A), 307 R/W Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following: 2
This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent- police station Crime No.71/2014 and thereafter, the offences were altered to Sections 498A, 302 and 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case that the complainant is the brother of the deceased.At the time of marriage of the deceased Rs.50,000/- cash and 10 grams of gold was given to the deceased. The complainant’s sister was harassed by her in-laws for dowry both physically and mentally. On 5.3.2014 at about 7.30 p.m. since complainant’s sister refused to bring dowry, complainant’s brother-in-law Mahadev and his father Venkatswamy and mother-in-law Gangamma 3
tried to murder her by pouring kerosene on her and litting fire. Since she made hue and cry one Shivanna called the complainant and informed the said incident and he got admitted the complainant’s sister to S.C.hospital at Hassan and requested the police to register the case and to take action against the accused persons. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered for the alleged offences.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.3 and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-accused No.3 is totally innocent and she has not at all committed the alleged offences and she has been falsely implicated in the case. There is a general allegation that she was also giving ill- treatment to the deceased to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. But what was the ill-treatment given, is 4
not specifically mentioned in the complaint. He has also submitted that petitioner is a women aged about 55 years and since from the date of arrest, she is in custody. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions she may be admitted to bail. It is also submitted that as per the history of the incident given by deceased herself before the Doctor, it is mentioned that burns done by her husband.
5. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments has submitted that the Investigating Officer has collected the material so far as giving physical and mental torture to the deceased by the present petitioner also by way of recording the statement of witnesses. Hence, it is submitted that the materials prima facie goes to suggest the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. The matter is still under investigation and hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail. 5
6. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order of the lower Court on the bail application and other materials produced in the case.
7. Perusing the averments made in the complaint, it is true that allegations are made even against the present petitioner that he was also giving both physical and mental ill-treatment and harassment to the deceased insisting her to bring dowry amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But as per the MLC register extract produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the history is mentioned as inflectional burns done by her husband and history given by the patient herself. So it prima facie shows that the allegations are mainly against the husband of the deceased that he has set fire to the deceased by pouring kerosene. The present petitioner, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is a women aged about 55 years, which fact is not disputed by the other side and since from the 6
date of arrest she is in custody. She has undertaken in the bail petition that she is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed. Therefore, looking to the material on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing stringent conditions to secure the presence of petitioner, she can be admitted to bail.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner- accused No.3 is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No.71/2014, subject to following conditions:-
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
(ii) She shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iii) She shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.