SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Parvatewwa Alias Parawwa vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 23 R D DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101310 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1 . SMT . PARVATEWWA ALIAS PARA WWA
W/O. CHANNABAS APPA HANCHINAMANI
AGE. 65 YEARS , OCC. HOUSEWIF E,
R/O. MUMMIGATTI VILLA GE,
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD.

2 . SMT . REN UKA W/O. GADIGEPPA MAIKAR
AGE. 28 YEARS , OCC. HOUSEWIF E,
R/O. BHAIRIDEVA RKOPPA VI LLAGE,
TQ. HUBBALLI , DI ST. DHARWAD .
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SRINIVAS B NAIK , HCGP)

AND

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BEN CH
THROUGH GARAG POLI CE STATION
DHARWAD
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAMESH B.CHI GARI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 438 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT ANTI CIPATORY BAI L T O
THE PETITIONERS /ACCUSED NOS .2 AND 3 IN GARAG
POLI CE STATION CRIME NO.45/ 2021 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNIS HABLE UNDER SECTION 306, 498A
R/W 34 OF I PC.
2

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

ORDER

This petition is filed by the accused Nos.2

3 under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the

Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail

in Crime No.45/2021 of Garag Police Station,

registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 306 and 498-A r/w 34 of The Indian

Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the

IPC’, for brevity).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that

one Smt. Nilavva W/o: Patrappa Kodliwad,

resident of Tarlagatta village of Kundgol Taluk,

lodged a complaint before Garag Police Station

on 02.03.2021, stating that she was residing

with her husband, son and daughter by name
3

Ranjeeta (deceased). The marriage of the

accused No.1 and deceased Ranjeeta was

solemnized on 25.12.2020. At the time of

marriage 5 tolas gold and utensils were given

to the accused No.1 and after marriage

accused No.1, his mother and sister were

teasing and harassing the deceased Ranjeeta

stating that the gold ornaments given to the

accused No.1 is not pure gold and she is not

good looking lady and she is black. It is further

stated that the deceased Ranjeeta telephoned

to the complainant on 28.02.2021 at 1.30

midnight and informed her mother-complainant

that she wish to come to her house Mummigatti

and asked her to come and take her. At that

time, the complainant heard the voice of mother

of accused No.1, not allowing Ranjeeta to talk

with her mother and subsequently they did not
4

receive the phone call. It is further stated that

in the morning at 9.30 a.m., when the

complainant told the accused No.1 that they

will come to Mummigatti, the accused No.1 told

not to come as he want to take his mother to

hospital at Dharwad, as she is not feeling well.

It is further stated that on 01.03.2021 at about

4.00 p.m., someone telephoned to the

complainant informing the death of Ranjeeta

and complainant with her husband and one

Siddappa came to Mummigatti and saw

deceased Ranjeeta got hanged in the house of

accused No.1. The complaint filed against the

accused No.1, his mother/petitioner-accused

No.2 and sister/petitioner-accused No.3 has

been registered in Crime No.45/2021 for the

aforesaid offences. The petitioners filed

Crl.Misc.No.208/2021 seeking anticipatory bail
5

and the same came to be rejected by IV Addl.

District Sessions Judge, Dharwad, by order

dated 18.03.2021. Therefore, the petitioners

are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

Subsequent to filing of the petition, charge

sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 3

for offences punishable under Section 498-A,

306 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners and the learned High Court

Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

4. It is the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners

are innocent, they have not committed any

offence as alleged and they have been falsely

implicated in this case. The complainant

initially has stated in her complaint that the

accused No.1, his mother/accused No.2 and his
6

sister/accused No.3 harassed the deceased

demanding dowry and stating that she is not

good looking and committed her murder. But

the complainant in her further statement has

stated that she came to know through

neighbours that deceased committed suicide

when there were nobody in the house by

latching the door. He would contend that

mother of the deceased has filed complaint in

the heat of anger as her daughter died in the

incident. In the initial period of marriage there

will be issue regarding the compatibility and

the deceased might be on a weak mind might

have committed suicide on trivial issue. He

would contend that, it is for the prosecution to

establish the act of the petitioners and other

accused abated as defined under Section 107

of IPC. He would contend that as the charge
7

sheet has been filed, the petitioners are not

required for any custodial interrogation. With

this, he prayed for allowing the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court

Government Pleader contended that the offence

alleged against the petitioners is heinous

offence. The petitioners and accused No.1 have

harassed the deceased within one year of

marriage and therefore they drove her to

commit suicide. Therefore, the presumption

contained under Section 113-A of Evidence Act,

is attracted, if the petitioners are granted bail,

they will tamper the prosecution witnesses and

flee from justice. With this, he prayed to

dismiss the petition.

6. Having regard to the submission

made by the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government
8

Pleader, this Court has gone through the

charge sheet records.

7. The complainant in her complaint has

stated that the accused No.1 and

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 have harassed

the deceased demanding additional dowry and

stating that she is not good looking and they

committed her murder. Deviating from this

statement, the complainant has stated that she

came to know regarding suicide committed by

the deceased when no one there in the house

through the neighbours. Whether the

harassment meted out by the petitioners and

others to the deceased drove her to commit

suicide is a matter of trial. As the charge sheet

has been filed, the petitioners are not required

for any custodial interrogation. There are no

criminal antecedents of the petitioners. The
9

petitioners are the residents of the address

shown in the cause title and the same is not

disputed. The main objection of the

prosecution is that in the event of granting

anticipatory bail, the petitioners are likely to

cause threat to the complainant and other

prosecution witnesses. The said objection may

be set right by imposing stringent conditions.

8. In the facts and circumstances of the

case and submission of the counsel, this Court

is of the view that there are valid grounds for

granting anticipatory bail subject to certain

terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following:

ORDER
The petition filed under
Section 438 of

Cr.P.C. is allowed. In the event of arrest of

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime
10

No.45/2021 of Garag Police Station, they shall

be released on anticipatory bail subject to the

following conditions:

i) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3

shall execute a personal bond for a

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one

lakh only) each with one surety for

the like sum to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional Court.

ii) Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall

surrender before the Investigating

Officer within fifteen days from

today.

iii) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3

shall not indulge in tampering the

prosecution witnesses.

11

iv) The petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3

shall attend the Court on all the dates

of hearing unless exempted and co-

operate in speedy disposal of the

case.

Sd/-

JUDGE

RM

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
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

Recent Comments

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2024 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