SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Gangamma W/O. Hanumantappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 November, 2018

:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

Crl.P.No.102197/2018

BETWEEN

1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O. HANUMANTAPPA
AGE:35 YRS,OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SRI RAMANAGAR,
TAL:GANGAVATHI,DIST:KOPPAL.

2. SMT RENUKA W/O. DURGAPPA
AGE:38 YRS,OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SRI RAMANAGAR,
TAL:GANGAVATHI,DIST:KOPPAL.
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADV.)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI,
GANGAVATHI RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
SPP OFFICE,HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR,HCGP)
:2:

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONES ON BAIL
IN GANGAVATHI RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.273/2017, FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHALBE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A,
302 R/W 34 OF IN S.C.NO.42/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE DIST. SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL.

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

ORDER

The Complainant-Smt.Tayamma W/o Laxman Bhovi,

age: 26 years, occ: Coolie, resident of Shriram nagar, taluk:

Gangavathi lodged the complaint, while she was admitted in

VIMS Hospital, Bellary, alleging that her parent’s place was

Sasalamari Village, she is the only daughter to her parents.

She was given in marriage, 11 years back to one Laxman S/o

Hanumanthappa Bhoovi. She lead her matrimonial life with

him for 11 year. She had begotten two children by name

Veeresh and Vidyashree. The thing stood thus, it is alleged

that, one Renuka-sister of her husband left her matrimonial

house and returned to parental house with her children.

Renuka-Sister in law, Gangamma-mother in law, Laxman-

husband, brother of her mother in law by name Nangesh
:3:

started ill-treating the complainant for one or the other

reason. On 09/09/2017 at 7.00 p.m. the complainant had

gone to hospital along with her children, as they were ill and

after her return, she was enquired by the accused persons

and all of them have abused and assaulted. On the same

day night at 3.00 a.m. the accused have driven her out of

home and in-front of the house all together poured kerosene

on her and lit her on fire. As a result of which she started

screaming and the accused took her to the Gangavathi

hospital and from their she was shifted to VIMS hospital,

Bellari. This being the circumstances the case came to be

registered for the offence punishable under Section 498A,

307, R/w. Sec. 34 of IPC against the accused persons in

Crime No.273/2017.

2. Tayamma could not signed because of the burnt injury

and thus impression of her left toe was obtained on the

complaint. Regarding had to the fact that the incident was

dated 16.09.2017. The complainant states that case was

registered for the charges of cruelty to her by the accused

persons and admitted to her for hospital as stated above.
:4:

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that

the accused persons are Husband-Laxman, mother in law-

Gangamma, sister in law-Renuka, brother of her mother in

law-Nagesh. Thus mother in law-Gangamma, sister in law-

Renuka/present petitioners are before this Court who are said

to be the accused Nos.2,3. The learned counsel for the

petitioners would further submit that accused No.4 was

released on bail by this Court in Crl.P.No.101089/2018 on

23.07.2018 and seeks a relief under doctrine of parity.

4. The learned HCGP would oppose the same and submits

that the complaint was registered on the basis of the incident

under the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, which

provides for commit to murder and thus the present

petitioners are not entitle for bail. The injured is the

complainant who did because of the burn injuries.

5. The complainant is the victim, she claims that she was

obtained abuse, ill-treatment, and harassment by the accused

persons constraint by her husband, mother in law, brother of

the mother in law and sister in law. Complainant was unable
:5:

to sign due to injuries. Thus, the mark from left toe was taken

on the complaint.

6. It was submitted that the accused persons were

arrested on 11.09.2017, since their arrest the petitioners

were in judicial custody. In the peculiar circumstances of the

case, the phase of the accused in the judicial custody and no

interference to the investigation cannot be the criteria to

grant the relief of bail. Thus, judicial custody, competition of

investigation or granting of bail to the accused No.4 by this

Court will not be of any to the petitioners that could be

equally reflected from the facts and circumstances of the

case. No grounds, rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Vb

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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