SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Neelavva W/O. Chandragouda … vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2014

Karnataka High Court Smt. Neelavva W/O. Chandragouda … vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100598/2014

BETWEEN :

SMT. NEELAVVA

W/O. CHANDRAGOUDA PATIL

AGE: 55 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK

R/O. SHYAGATI,

TQ: & DIST: GADAG.

… PETITIONER

(BY SRI K L PATIL & SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATES) AND :

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

THROUGH GADAG RURAL PS GADAG.

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THIS PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.65/2014 OF GADAG RURAL P.S. REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 304B, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 & 4 OF D.P. ACT, 1961.

2

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

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent – State. Perused the records.

2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from records are that a person by name Mallappa Fakirappa Thoravi of Basapur village, Navalgund taluk, Dharwad district, has lodged a complaint on 06.03.2014 making allegations that the deceased Shilpa, daughter of complainant was given in marriage to accused No.1 – Amrutagouda S/o. Chandragouda Patil on 16.04.2012 by giving some cash, gold, silver and other articles as dowry. It is alleged that even after marriage the accused persons have started demanding more money and gold articles and in that context they were harassing and illtreating the deceased Shilpa. In this background it is alleged that on the date of incident i.e., 3

on 05.03.2014 the complainant’s wife and son had been to the house of deceased in order to take the deceased to their village, as the accused persons refused to send the deceased to their house, both of them went away from the house of accused persons. It is further alleged that on that day after departure of mother and brother of deceased all the accused persons once again started illtreating and harassing the deceased by assaulting and abusing her in connection with demand of dowry and gold articles from the family of deceased. It is also stated in the complaint that the deceased being frustrated in the life on 06.03.2014 at about 6 a.m. had poured kerosene and set herself ablaze. Thereafter she was shifted to KIMS hospital, Hubli and there she has disclosed to her father about the above said allegations against the petitioner herein and other accused persons. The police have initially registered a case in Crime No.65/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘I.P.C.’ for brevity) and 4

also under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Subsequently, it is seen from the records that the complainant has filed another complaint on 07.03.2014 giving a total go-by to earlier complaint averments totally converting the case into one of murder. It is stated by him in the second complaint that on 06.03.2014 the accused persons have not only abused and harassed the deceased, but early in the morning at 5 a.m. the accused persons, particularly this petitioner Neelavva poured kerosene on the deceased and lit fire on her. It is seen from the records that the Taluka Executive Magistrate has visited the hospital and recorded the Dying Declaration, which support the second complaint lodged by complainant. The records also disclose that the petitioner has approached the Sessions Court for grant of bail. Except accused Nos.1 and 3, the other accused persons were released on bail. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that so far as accused persons i.e., the father-in-law and brother-in-law of deceased Shilpa are concerned, there are no specific allegations against them 5

in order to attract Section 304B or Section 302 of I.P.C. Therefore, they were released on bail.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner has withdrawn Crl.P. 100599/2014 filed by husband with a liberty to file bail petition after filing of charge sheet. As narrated, in the earlier complaint there are no allegations against this petitioner with regard to pouring of kerosene and lighting of fire. After entry of Shilpa’s father into the picture a second complaint is filed making strong allegations for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 302 of I.P.C. At this stage, this Court is not in a position to ascertain what has transpired on that particular day and in my opinion the same has to be thrashed out during the course of full dressed trial. Under the above said circumstances, when there are two versions, in my opinion, this petitioner, being a lady aged about 55 years, is entitled to be enlarged on bail by imposing some stringent conditions and by giving the 6

benefit under Section 437(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Hence, the following:

ORDER

Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C by petitioner is allowed. Petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.65/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, subject to the following conditions – i) Petitioner shall surrender herself before the Investigating Officer / Committal Court / Trial Court, as the case may be, within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order.

ii) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Magistrate.

7

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge herself in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

iv) Petitioner shall make herself available to the Investigation Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation, interrogation, etc. v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Committal Court till filing of the charge sheet or for a period of two months, whichever is earlier. vi) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of trial Court without prior permission, till the case registered against her is disposed of. Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm/

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