SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Thippiramma vs State Of Karnataka By on 8 February, 2018





1. Smt. Thippiramma,
Aged about 52 years,
w/o Basavarajappa,
residing at Kattalagere village,
Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District-577219.

2. Sri Basavarajappa,
s/o late M.Mariyappa,
aged about 60 years,
residing at Kattalagere village,
Channagiri Taluk,
Davanagere District-57721 ….. Accused/Petitioners

(By Sri Subramanya Bhat.M. Adv.)

State of Karnataka by
Women Police Station,
Davanagere, represented by
State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Bengaluru-560 001. ….. Complainant/Respondent

( By Sri K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed u/s.438 Cr.P.C. praying
that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the
petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.186/2017 of Women Police Station, Davanagere District
for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304B
r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:


This is the petition filed by the petitioners-

accused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 438 of Criminal

Procedure Code, seeking anticipatory bail and to direct

the respondent-police to release the petitioners-accused

Nos. 2 and 3 on bail in the event of their arrest for the

offences punishable under Section 498A, 306, 304B r/w

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent – police

station in Crime No. 186/2017.


2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the petitioners so also the argument of the learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

3. The brother of the deceased is the complainant

in this case, wherein he has made the allegations that

the petitioners along with accused No.1 were giving ill-

treatment and harassment to the deceased and they

were also insisting her to bring the dowry amount from

her parental place and the sister of the complainant

died in the house of the present petitioners. Therefore

he made allegations against all the accused persons

who are responsible for causing the death of his sister.

4. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, F.I.R., complaint and other material placed on



5. Even looking to the complaint averments,

there is mention made at paragraph 2 of the complaint

that since one year Ajaya Kumar-accused No.1 took

Shobha the deceased to Ranebennur as he was working

in the Seeds Company and they were staying at the said

place itself and at the same time during that period the

deceased Shobha became pregnant and also though the

doctor told that it is difficult for her to get easy delivery

of baby, even then the accused was insisting that she

has to go to Kattalagere and has to stay there only.

This averment made in the complaint goes to show that

the husband and wife were residing separately at

Davanagere because accused No.1 was employed in

Seeds Company at Ranebennur. Even further it is

stated that since earlier to the incident they had taken

one house on rental basis behind Maruti Electricals and

they were staying there together. This also supports the

contention of the petitioners herein that they were

residing separately and not along with the deceased and

accused No.1 when the incident took place.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the

statement that these two petitioners who are in-laws of

the deceased were residing separately. They took the

contention that they are falsely implicated and they

have not given any ill-treatment or harassment to the

deceased. The petitioners contended in the petition that

they are innocent and also undertakes to abide by any

conditions to be imposed by this Court.

7. Apart from the merits of the case, the

petitioner No.1 is shown to be aged 52 years and

petitioner No.2 is aged about 60 years, which is not

seriously challenged by the prosecution. The alleged

offences are also not exclusively punishable with death

or imprisonment for life. Therefore in view of this

factual matrix and in view of the above, I am of the

opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions,

petitioners can be granted with anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The

respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present

petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in

connection with Crime No.186/2017 registered for the

above said offences, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal
bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each and shall
furnish one surety for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the arresting

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses, directly or

iii. Petitioners have to make themselves
available before the Investigating
Officer for interrogation, as and when

called for and to cooperate with the
further investigation.

iv. The petitioners have to appear before
the concerned Court within 30 days
from the date of this order and to
execute the personal bond and the
surety bond.




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Copyright © 2022 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