SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt.Nagarathnamma W/O Goni … vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 March, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100395/2018

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA
W/O GONI BASAPPA,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O UTTANGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.

2. SMT. MAHADEVI
W/O BASAVARAJA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O UTTANGI VILLAGE,
TQ: HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI.
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL, ADV.)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH HADAGALI P.S.,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.ANAND K NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP.)
2

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE
PETITIONERS IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME
NO.237/2017 OF HADAGALI POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 304 B, 498 A
R/W. 149 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

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

ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.237/2017 registered

by the respondent-Police under Sections 304B, 498A read

with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused

Nos.3 and 4 respectively. FIR was registered on the basis

of the complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased

alleging that the deceased was given in marriage to

accused No.1 on 11.11.2016. At the time of marriage a

sum of Rs.2 lakhs and gold was given to accused No.1 as

dowry. Subsequent to the marriage, accused No.1 along
3

with other accused persons started ill-treating and

harassing the deceased asking her to bring additional

dowry from her parents house. Even though the

complainant assured to settle their demands, yet on

20.12.2017 at about 11.40 or 12 in the night, the brother

of accused No.1 informed the complainant that the

deceased has died due to heart attack. Immediately,

complainant, his mother and his uncle and sister rushed to

the house of the deceased and on reaching there at about

6.30 a.m., they found that there was cut injury on the

neck of the deceased and marks of assault on the back.

3. Learned HCGP has not filed any written

statement of objections, however, has orally opposed the

petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

that the petitioners herein are the married sisters of

accused No.1. The only allegations levelled against them

are that they demanded additional dowry from the
4

deceased. Other than that there are no allegations that the

petitioners herein are instrumental in the unnatural death

of the deceased. Hence, he seeks for an appropriate order

in favour of the petitioners.

5. Learned HCGP however submits that the

allegations made against the petitioners are serious in

nature. The death has taken place within 7 years from the

date of the marriage. There are serious allegations of

cruelty and ill-treatment to the deceased in the

matrimonial home. Moreover, the factual findings indicate

that the deceased was murdered in the matrimonial home.

Therefore, during the pendency of the investigation, the

petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and on going through the allegations made in

the complaint, it is seen that the only allegations made

against the petitioners are that they along with accused

No.1 and his mother were demanding additional dowry
5

from the deceased. There are no allegations that on the

date of the incident the petitioners herein were in the

house of accused No.1. Therefore, having regard to the

nature of the allegations made against the petitioners and

the petitioners being married ladies residing with their

family members, in order to ensure that the criminal

process is not misused by the police, they are required to

be admitted to bail. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

The petitioners are directed to appear before the

Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this

order on any working day and on their appearance, the

I.O. shall interrogate the petitioners on the same day and

shall enlarge them on bail on obtaining a bond for

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each with one

surety each for the likesum to his satisfaction and subject

to the following conditions:

6

(i) The petitioners shall appear before the I.O.

and the Court as and when required.

(ii) The petitioners shall co-operate in the

investigation.

(iii) The petitioners shall not threaten or lure

the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) The petitioners shall mark their attendance

in Hadagali Police Station on the 1st and 15th of

every calendar month until filing of the final

report.

Sd/-

JUDGE
Sh

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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