1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4388 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT PERLA KRISHNA KOMALI
W/O P V SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT NO.73-4-38,
G.F-1,B-BLOCK,
“MANJUS RESIDENCY”,
THOTAVAARI STREET,
OPPOSITE HIGH SCHOOL ROAD,
PATAMATA,VIJAYAWADA,
ANDRA PRADESH-520 010
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI: R.P. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI: SUNIL KUMAR.S ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
H.S.R.LAYOUT POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY.
(STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX
BANGALORE-01). … RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.121/2018 OF
HSR LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 304B AND 498A OF
IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking
regular bail in Cr.No.121/2018 registered for the offences
punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal
Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned HCGP. The learned HCGP has not filed any statement of
objections, but has orally opposed the petition.
2. The petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased.
According to the prosecution, the deceased was ill-treated and
harassed in her matrimonial home. The petitioner herein is
alleged to have demanded dowry and subjected the deceased to
ill-treatment and cruelty. Further case of the prosecution is that
3
the deceased committed suicide on 19.04.2018 in the house
where she was residing with accused No.1.
3. Undisputedly, the petitioner herein was residing at
Andhra Pradesh, whereas the incident in question took place in
HSR Layout, Bengaluru, which clearly indicate that the petitioner
and the deceased were not residing together. Nonetheless,
having regard to the allegations made against the petitioner, I do
not find that the custody of the petitioner is anyway necessary
for the purpose of investigation. Substantial investigation is
already completed. The petitioner is a woman, who has been in
judicial custody since 28.04.2018. Her presence for the purpose
of trial would be secured.
4. Hence, the following order:-
Criminal petition is allowed.
a) Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on
furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the
likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
court.
4
b) Petitioner shall appear before the court as and
when required.
c) Petitioner shall not threaten or allure the
prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
d) Petitioner shall not get involved in similar
offences.
e) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the
Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial
Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
*mn/-
