Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Siddashetty And Others vs State Of Karnataka

High Court Of Karnataka|19 February, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6968/2018 BETWEEN:
1. Siddashetty S/o Madashetty, Aged about 65 years, 2. Rachashetty S/o Madashetty, Aged about 55 years, Both are r/at:
Poorigali Village, B.G.Pura Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District, Pin-571430. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Kemparaju, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Belakavadi Police Station, Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru-560001. ...Respondent (By Sri. K.P.Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in CR.NO.62/2018 (C.C.NO.55/2018) of Belakavadi P.S., Mandya District for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The present petition has been filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to release them on anticipatory bail in Crime No.62/2018 (C.C.No.55/2018) of Belakavadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the daughter of the complainant-deceased was married with accused No.1 about four years back. Thereafter deceased was conceived but unfortunately there was a miscarriage and thereafter, she did not conceive. It is further alleged that accused No.1 and her in-laws subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by stating that she could not give birth to a child and regarding the said cruelty, a panchayath was also held and there the accused persons undertook that they will look after the deceased in good manner and accordingly, the deceased was sent back to the house of accused No.1 on 02/04/2018 at about 8.00 P.M. Thereafter, the complainant spoke to the deceased over phone and enquired whether she is being treated well in her matrimonial home. While speaking over the phone, the deceased was weeping and the phone was disconnected. Subsequently, on 04/04/2018 at about 6.30 P.M., the complainant came to know that deceased has committed a suicide by hanging herself and on this basis the complaint was registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that accused Nos.4 to 7 and 8 have already been released on bail. On the ground of parity, accused Nos.2 and 3 are also entitled to be released on anticipatory bail. He further submitted that there is no iota of evidence to show that petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that the alleged offence is not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Already charge sheet has been filed and petitioners are not required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. It is his further submission that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are ready to abide by any conditions imposed on them by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 were not available for investigation or interrogation. He further submitted that there is ample material to show that the accused Nos.2 and 3 were ill-treating and harassing the deceased and because of the same the deceased has committed the suicide. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
7. As could be seen from the records produced, accused No.1 has already been released on bail in Crl.Misc.No.791/2018 by IV ADDL., District & Sessions Judge, Mandya, vide order dated 03/09/2018. Even, already the charge sheet has been filed and the alleged incident has taken place on 04/04/2018, the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself. The complaint also discloses the fact that on 02/04/2018 at about 8.00 P.M., when the complainant spoke with the deceased and enquired about her condition in matrimonial home, while speaking over the phone, the deceased was weeping and the phone was disconnected. If really, the deceased was suffering from ill-treatment and harassment, she could have disclosed the said fact to the complainant. The complaint is silent; that is the matter while will be considered and appreciated when the trial will be commenced. Already accused Nos.4 to 7 and 8 are released on bail. Under such facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing stringent conditions if the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
8. In the light of the discussion held by me above, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to be released on the ground of parity. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No.62/2018 (C.C.No.55/2018) of Belakavadi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
1. Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs only) with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer.
2. They shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly.
3. They shall surrender to Investigating Officer within 15 days from today and regularly attend the trial.
4. They shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Siddashetty And Others vs State Of Karnataka

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
19 February, 2019
Judges
  • B A Patil