IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100737/2017
1. SMT.MADINA W/O MOULA TAMBOLI
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: CHABASARWADI, TQ: MIRAJ,
DIST: SANGALI, MAHARASHTRA STATE.
2. SRI SALIM S/O MOULA TAMBOLI
AGE: 40 YEARS,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: ATHANI,
3. SMT.RESHMA W/O SALIM TAMBOLI
AGE: 32 YEARS,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: ATHANI,
(BY SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE AND
SRI RAJENDRA R PATIL, ADVOCATES)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ATHANI POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
(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 PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.58/2017 REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 143,
147, 506, 498-A, 304-B AND 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF
IPC BY THE RESPONDENT ATHANI POLICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
This is the petition filed by petitioners-accused Nos.2
to 4 under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking anticipatory
bail to direct the respondent-police to release the
petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the
alleged offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 506,
498A, 304B, 302 r/w 149 of I.P.C. registered in
respondent-police station Crime No.58/2017.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the
complaint averments that about six years ago the
marriage of the daughter of the complainant namely
Nilofer was performed with accused No.1, who is the son
of accused No.2 and brother of accused Nos.3, 4 and 5.
Said Nilofer did not beget a child. Hence, all the accused
persons were ill-treating said Nilofer physically and
mentally and they were also insisting the deceased to
bring the dowry amount. The further allegation that about
two months ago, Nilofer was ousted from the house of
accused, with a direction to bring dowry amount.
Complainant and other elders advised the accused and
when the matter stood thus, on 14.02.2017, the said
Nilofer had rang up to her mother and informed that all the
accused were assaulting her and insisting her to bring
dowry, failing which they would not allow her to live. For
that, the wife of the complainant said that within one, or
two days, they would go to the house of accused. On
15.02.2017 at 4.30 p.m., the complainant came to know
that on 14.02.2017 at 2.00 p.m., Nilofer took poison and
she was admitted to Miraj Hospital. Accordingly, the
complainant and others went to Civil Hospital, Miraj, but
she was not in a position to speak. On 16.02.2017 at.
12.30 p.m., Nilofer died.
3. On the basis of the said complaint case came
to be registered. Firstly it was registered in UDR and
thereafterwards on the complaint of the complainant it was
registered in Crime No.58/2017.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 and
learned High Court Govt. Pleader for respondent-state.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the
submission that looking to the averments in the complaint
they are bald and vague and there is no specific allegation
as against the petitioners. It is also his contention that the
other accused persons who are the petitioners herein, they
were residing separately. They never given ill-treatment,
never demanded dowry amount from the deceased. He
also submitted that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are the women
and petitioner No.2 who is also person with age of 40
years. Hence, he submitted that looking to the prosecution
material there is no prima facie case as against the
petitioners. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions,
petitioners may be granted with anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Govt.
Pleader made the submission that looking to the
allegations in the complaint there are specific allegations
regarding the demand of dowry amount insisting the
deceased to bring amount otherwise she will not be
spared. Deceased was not having the children. The
accused persons were giving ill-treatment even on that
ground also. It is also his submission that the matter is still
under investigation. Hence, petitioners are not entitled to
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR and complaint and also other materials
produced along with the petition, so also the bail order by
the learned Sessions Judge, Belgaum rejecting the bail
application of the petitioners.
8. Looking to the complaint averments prima
facie there are allegations regarding the demand for dowry
amount and the ill-treatment both physical and mental.
Admittedly even according to the petitioners, the incident
took place in the place of the house of the accused.
However she was shifted to the hospital later. The alleged
offences are also under Section 304B and 302, matter is
still under investigation as submitted by both the side.
Therefore, at this stage without expressing any opinion as
to the merits of the case is concerned, it is not proper at
this stage to allow the petition. Accordingly, petition is
The petitioners shall approach the concerned Court if
so desired after completion of investigation and filing of
All the contentions are kept open.