:1:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100737/2017
BETWEEN:

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,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.

3. SMT.RESHMA W/O SALIM TAMBOLI
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: BOMMANAL, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE AND
SRI RAJENDRA R PATIL, ADVOCATES)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH ATHANI POLICE STATION,
NOW REP. BY SPP,
:2:

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
… RESPONDENT

(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:

ORDER

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
:3:

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
:4:

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
:5:

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

anticipatory bail.

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.

:6:

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

disposed of.

The petitioners shall approach the concerned Court if

so desired after completion of investigation and filing of

charge sheet.

All the contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE
CLK