IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL 2017
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100805/2017
S/o Nagappa Haragur
Age: 32 years,
Occ: Cloth Business,
R/o: Maski Veerapur Street,
9th Ward, Tal: Lingasugur,
Now at near Shankarlinga Gudi,
Gajendragad, Dist: Gadag.
(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.
(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.