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
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,
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