1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4545/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Lakshmidevamma
W/o Anjinappa
Aged about 40 years
2. Kumari Bhavani @ Bhavya
D/o Anjinappa
Aged about 20 years
Both are R/at Manighatta village
Holur Hobli, Kolar Taluk District
Kolar – 563 101 … Petitioners
(By Sri M.R.Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka by
Kolar Rural Police Station
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka
Bengaluru – 560 001 … Respondent
(By Sri Chetan Desai, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under section 438 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the
event of their arrest in Crime No.279/2018 of Kolar Rural
Police Station, Kolar District for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 149
of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961.
This criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
This is a petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The
petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively in Crime
No.279/2018 registered by the respondent-police for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302
read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The first petitioner is the
wife and second petitioner is the daughter of brother of the
husband of the deceased.
2. I have heard the petitioners’ counsel and the
learned High Court Government Pleader.
3
3. Name of the deceased is Ambika, the wife of
first accused. The marriage of the first accused with
deceased took place on 01.10.2017 at Kolar. The first
accused himself met all the marriage expenses. It is
alleged that when the deceased went to the house of the
accused after marriage, all the accused used to quarrel
with her. Further they demanded for a two wheeler and
some money.
4. On 29.05.2018 at about 9.30am, the husband
of the first petitioner made a telephone call to the
complainant and told him that the deceased had been
admitted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital for treatment.
Immediately, the complainant went to the hospital with his
friend Manjunath and saw his daughter being dead. He
noticed pressing mark around the neck. Therefore,
suspecting foul play in the death, he made a complaint.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that
the petitioners are in no way connected in the incident.
4
The first petitioner is not the mother-in-law of the
deceased, rather she is co-sister and that second petitioner
is the daughter of the first petitioner. She is a student.
On the alleged date of incident she had gone to college for
writing examination. Unnecessarily they have been
implicated in the offence. Their apprehension of being
arrested is well founded. Therefore, anticipatory bail is
required to be granted.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader
opposes the grant of bail by submitting that the
investigation is not yet completed. However, to a question
regarding stage of investigation, he submits that final
report from FSL is awaited and remaining part of the
investigation is over.
7. It appears that the incident took place inside
the house of the accused and they have to give
explanation as to what happened inside the house. But at
the same time, it is to be stated that, first petitioner is not
5
the mother-in-law of the deceased. The mother-in-law of
the deceased is not arraigned as an accused. The
involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence is a
matter to be established before the Court. Since the
major part of investigation is over and the petitioners were
not arrested immediately after the registration of the
complaint and also for the reason that they are women,
there is no impediment for granting anticipatory bail. The
apprehension of arrest is still persisting. Therefore, the
following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
In the event of arrest of the petitioners
by the respondent-police station, in connection
with Crime No.279/2018, they shall be
released on bail by obtaining from each of
them a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) and two sureties each
for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigation Officer. The petitioners are also
subjected to the following conditions:
6
i. They shall appear before the respondent-
police for the purpose of investigation
whenever their presence is necessary.
ii. They shall not tamper with the evidence
collected by the investigating officeriii. They shall not directly or indirectly threaten
the witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMV/NS