IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2128/2019 BETWEEN:
1. Somashekar @ Somashekaraiah D.R., S/o Late Rangadhamappa @ Rangadhamaiah, Aged about 28 years, R/at No.16, Medigeshi Hobli, Madhugiri, now working as Office boy man well Management Systems, No.445, 65th Cross, 5th Block, Rajaji Nagara, Bangalore-10.
2. Rangalakshmamma W/o late Rangadhamappa, Aged about 65 years, R/at Venkatapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District – 574 141.
(By Sri. Lakshmikanth K., Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka, By Madhugiri Police Station, Madhugiri, ...Petitioners Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II) ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.35/2019 of Madhugiri Police Station, Tumakuru for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accused No.2 who is the petitioner No.1 herein has already been arrested by the police. Therefore, petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. does not survive for consideration as far as petitioner No.1 is concerned. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as not pressed against the petitioner No.1/accused No.2.
2. Petitioner No.2 is the accused No.3 in Cr.No.35/2019 registered by the Madhugiri police for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC, has filed this petition under section 438 of Cr.P.C. to grant anticipatory bail.
3. The allegation against the accused persons is that accused No.1-Siddaraju is the son of petitioner No.2 herein. Accused No.1 and deceased Shilpa have said to be fell in love with each other and eloped from the village and got married, prior to four months from the date of complaint, both of them came to Venkatapura Village and started to reside with accused No.1. Due to the mental torture by the accused, despite living separately in a rented house, torture was continuing by the accused Nos.2 an 3 to the deceased, as a result deceased said to be committed suicide by hanging herself in the houses of accused No.1 in the intervening night of 22/23.02.2019. Hence, complaint came to be registered. During investigation, accused No.1 and 2 were arrested and they are in judicial custody.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that petitioner No.2 is accused No.3 is innocent of the alleged offences. He also submits that petitioner No.2 is residing separately from the deceased and accused No.1. As such, there is no question of demand of dowry and mental harassment to the deceased by the accused No.3. He further submits that the alleged offences are not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life and she is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed on her by this Court and ready to offer sureties, and hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.2/accused No.3.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP objected for bail and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Upon hearing the arguments of both the side and on perusal of records, it is revealed that accused No.1 and deceased fell in love, eloped and got married. About four month prior to the lodging of complaint, both of them have said to have come back to village and started residing in rented house and complainant said to have paid Rs.30,000/- to the accused No.1 and deceased for household expenditure. Except the allegation against accused No.1, there is no direct evidence as against accused No.3. On the other hand, the accused No.3 resided separately from deceased and accused No.1. Hence, question of demand of dowry and mental harassment does not arise. Though the said offences are non bailable in nature but they are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner is also a woman entitled for special consideration. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition deserves to be allowed.
7. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned.
The respondent–Police are directed to release the petitioner No.2/accused No.3 on bail in the event of her arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., registered by the respondent–Police Station in Crime No.35 of 2019, subject to the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner No.2/Accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate, as the case may be;
(ii) Petitioner No.2 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) The petitioner No.2 shall surrender before Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order;
(iv) Petitioner No.2 shall make herself available to the Investigating Officer, as and when called for;
(v) Petitioner No.2 shall appear before the concerned Court within fifteen days from the date of her arrest and release by the Investigating Officer and to move for regular bail.
JS/-
Sd/- JUDGE