SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sri. Mahantesh S/O Nagappa … vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 April, 2017








Sri Mahantesh
S/o Nagappa Haragur
Age: 32 years,
Occ: Cloth Business,
R/o: Maski Veerapur Street,
9th Ward, Tal: Lingasugur,
Dist: Raichur,
Now at near Shankarlinga Gudi,
Gajendragad, Dist: Gadag.
… Petitioner

(By Sri Srinand A Pachhapure, Advocate)


The State of Karnataka
Through Kushtagi Police Station,
Now represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka
Dharwad Bench at Dharwad.
… Respondent

(By Sri Praveen K.Uppar, HCGP)

This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., seeking to grant bail to the petitioner in
Sessions Case No.20 of 2017 pending on the file of
District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (Crime No.99 of
2016 registered for the offences punishable under
section 498-A, 302 and 201 read with 34 of IPC and
section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act by the
respondent Kushtagi Police Station).

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


This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on

bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A,

302, 201 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in

respondent-Police Station Crime No.99/2016.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner-accused No.4 so also the

learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State.

3. I have perused the averments made in the

complaint, it is filed by Smt.Rachamma, who is the

mother of the deceased, wherein she has stated that

Chaitra was given in marriage to Kapil on 06.12.2015

residing at Kushtagi. At the time of said marriage,

complainant as per the customs gave 1-½ tolas of gold

to the husband of Chaitra. Said Chaitra and her

husband were at the first instance in cordial terms, but

subsequently the dispute was started in between

Chaitra and her mother-in-law. Therefore, said Chaitra

returned to her parental house. After some days, the

husband of Chaitra took her back to his house.

Thereafter the husband and mother-in-law of Chaitra

demanded the said Chaitra to bring four tolas of gold

and also certain amount in order to repay the loan

raised by them. The said Chaitra was informing about

the harassment given by her in-laws to her mother and

others. Due to the quarrel in between Chaitra and her

in-laws the complainant came to Kushtagi and advised

her son-in-law and others to look after Chaitra in proper

manner. On 18.03.2016 at 6.00 p.m., said Chaitra

called the complainant over phone and intimated that

her husband gave two Idlies to her and except that no

meals are provided to her, they also assaulted her and

abused her in filthy language. After hearing the same,

the complainant told her daughter that she will come to

Kushtagi on next day morning. But at about 9.15 p.m.

the father-in-law of deceased called the complainant

through phone and intimated that said Chaitra died by

hanging. On the basis of this complaint, case came to

be registered against the husband-Kapil, mother-in-law

of the deceased and father-in-law.

4. Thereafterwards the further statement of the

complainant came to be recorded by the police on

19.03.2016 during investigation i.e. on the next date of

incident. Even in the further statement also there is no

mention about the involvement of the present petitioner

in committing the alleged offence and again on

22.03.2016 i.e. four days after the alleged incident, one

more further statement of complainant came to be

recorded by the Investigation Officer, wherein she told

before the police altogether a different story involving

the present petitioner giving go-bye to her earlier

complaint against three persons, husband and in-laws.

Therefore, on the basis of this further statement dated

22.03.2016, the present petitioner has been arrayed as

accused No.4 in the case.

5. Looking to the materials placed on record, I

am of the clear opinion that the complainant is not

definite about her case and four days thereafter the

further statement was given involving the present

petitioner. Petitioner contended in the petition that he is

innocent and not involved in committing the alleged

offence. There is a false implication and he is ready to

abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by

the Court. The incident when it has taken place is also

in the house of original accused Nos.1 to 3 wherein

present petitioner nowhere connected with the said

spot. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is fit case to

exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner/

accused No.4 and to release him on bail.

6. Hence, petition is allowed. The petitioner/

accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime

No.99/2016 registered by the respondent Police for the

above said offences, subject to following conditions:

i. Petitioner has to execute personal bond
for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish
one surety for the like sum to the
satisfaction of concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of
the prosecution witnesses directly or

iii. Petitioner shall appear before the
concerned Court regularly.




Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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