SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt. Prema vs The State Of Karnataka By on 4 June, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2498 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1. Smt. Prema,
W/o Shivashankarappa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/o Bachanahalli Village,
Hallimysore Hobli,
Holenarasipura Taluk,
Hassan District – 573 211.

2. Shivashankarappa,
S/o late Kempaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
R/o Bachanahalli Village,
Hallimysore Hobli,
Holenarasipura Taluk,
Hassan District – 573 211.

3. Smt.Asha,
W/o Kumarappa,
Aged about 32 years,
R/o Bachanahalli Village,
Hallimysore Hobli,
Holenarasipura Taluk,
Hassan District – 573 211.
… Petitioners
2

(By Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, Sr.Counsel for
Sri. MRC Manohar, Advocate)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
By Hallimysore Police Station,
Hassan District.
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Complex,
Bangalore – 560 001.
… Respondent

(By Sri.K.P.Yoganna, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the
petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.30/2019 of Hallimysore P.S., Hassan for the offence
P/U/S 304B, 504, 498A read with 34 of SectionIPC and Section
3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders, this
day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to

be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in

connection with the proceedings in Crime No.30/2019

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
Section3

Section304-B, Section504 of IPC r/w Section 3 and Section4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on

08.03.2019, Naganna, the father of the deceased has

filed a complaint against petitioners and the complaint

came to be registered for the offences as stated above.

It is stated that the second daughter of the informant

was given in marriage to one Manjunath, the son of

petitioner nos.1 and 2. It is further stated that the

deceased was complaining against her husband and

in-laws frequently regarding harassment for dowry. It

transpires that on 08.03.2019, at about 11.00 a.m., the

deceased had called her father and informed him over

the phone that she has been harassed and tortured by

her husband and in-laws along with sister of her

mother-in-law. It is further stated that subsequently he

has informed his son-in-law and told him to talk to his

daughter. It is stated that subsequently, the relatives
4

upon information were asked to go and see the daughter

of the complainant. It transpires that the doors were

locked and after removing the roof tiles, it was noticed

that the deceased was found hanging.

3. It is the case of petitioners that petitioners were

not present in the house at that point of time. It is also

stated that the husband of deceased is in judicial

custody. The investigation is in progress and these

petitioners are not required for custodial interrogation.

It is further stated that the second petitioner is working

in the office of BSNL and the third petitioner is married

and staying elsewhere and are being included in the

complaint on the false pretext.

4. Taking note of the fact that the husband of

deceased is in judicial custody and also the undertaking

by the petitioners to co-operate with the investigation,

the case of the petitioners to enlarge them on bail in the

event of their arrest by the respondent police can be
5

considered. In light of the custodial interrogation of the

accused no. 1 prima facie no case is made out for

detention of the other accused. The role of the other

accused in the commission of the offence is a matter to

be prove in crime. Accordingly, without expressing any

opinion on merits of the complaint, the petitioners are

entitled to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest

in Crime No.30/2019 in connection with the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A, Section304-B, Section504 of IPC

r/w Section 3 and Section4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

subject to following conditions:-

(a) The petitioners shall appear in person before
the Investigating Officer at Hallimysore Police
Station, Holenarasipura Circle, Hassan District
in connection with Crime No.30/2019 within
seven days from receipt of this order and shall
execute a personal bond for a sum of
1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) each with a
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the
Investigating Officer.

6

(b) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the
Investigating Officer and shall not indulge in
any criminal activities henceforth.

(c) The petitioners shall not tamper with evidence,
influence in any way any witness.

(d) The petitioners shall physically present
themselves and mark their attendance before
the concerned SHO once in fortnight between
10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m., till filing of the
charge-sheet, whichever is earlier.

(e) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions
by the petitioner shall result in automatic
cancellation of bail.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Np/-

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 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