SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Lakshmidevamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2018








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)


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)

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,

This criminal petition coming on for orders this day,
the Court made the following:


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. 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.

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

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



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:


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 officer

iii. They shall not directly or indirectly threaten
the witnesses.



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.


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