IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7788/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Dileepa, S/o. Nanjegowda, Aged about 28 years 2. Smt. Sunanda, W/o. Nanjegowda, Aged about 45 years 3. Smt. Bhagya, W/o. Deshalinga, Aged about 38 years, AND:
All are R/at Aladgally Village, Arakere Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District – 541 012.
(By Sri. Lakshmi Kanth K, Adv.) ... Petitioners State of Karnataka, By Arakere Police Station, Mandya District, Represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP) ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Cr.No.182/2017 of Arakere Police Station, Mandya, for the offence p/u/s 306 r/w 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 petitioner made the submission that in so far as petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is concerned as he has been arrested, the petition seeking anticipatory bail has become infructuous and hence he is not pressing the petition so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned. So the petition is to be heard in respect of other petitioners.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC, registered in respondent police station Crime No.182/2017.
3. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the submission that looking to the complaint averments and the prosecution materials there is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained by the prosecution.
5. Learned counsel further made the submission that looking to the complaint averments serious allegations are against accused No.1 and he submitted, so far as accused No.1 is concerned he has also been granted regular bail by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Mandya. Learned counsel produces the copy of the bail order dated 25.10.2017 filed in Crl.Misc.No.5456/2017. It is his contention that so far as the present petitioners are concerned they are women and even as per Sec.437 proviso they are entitled for bail. He also made the submission, even considering the prosecution material so far as petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 is concerned there is no prima-facie case made out by the prosecution. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and to admit the petitioners to anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the allegations made in the complaint they clearly goes to show there was a continuous harassment by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 also to the deceased and when it becomes intolerable, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, there is a proximity with regard to the alleged act and ill-treatment and harassment made out to her by the present petitioners. Hence, he submitted that they are not entitled for anticipatory bail.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the other materials produced by the petitioners along with the petition so also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in respect of accused No.1. Even looking to the complaint allegations as submitted rightly by the counsel for the petitioners, serious allegations are against accused No.1. He had already been granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The contention of the present petitioners is that they are not at all involved in committing the alleged offence. There is a false implication of the petitioners in the said case. Apart from that both the petitioners are women and even the alleged offence is not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In view of the material which is placed on record, I am of the opinion that they can be admitted to anticipatory bail by imposing reasonable conditions.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to release the present petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail, in the event of their arrest for the above offences registered by respondent police station in Crime No.182/2017, subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation as and when called for and to cooperate with further investigation.
iv. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/- JUDGE Sv/-