IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4546 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. ANUSUYAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O.MAHALINGAIAH 2. MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS S/O.LATE SIDDANANJAPPA BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF C-NANDIHALLI VILLAGE CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 101.
(BY SRI M.VINAYA KEERTHI ADV., FOR SRI.G.S.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV.,) AND:
STATE BY CHELUR POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI.HONNAPPA, HCGP) ... PETITIONERS …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.76/2019 REGISTERED BY CHELUR POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 304(B), AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners files a memo not pressing the petition insofar as second petitioner is concerned. Therefore, memo taken on record. Petition is dismissed as against second petitioner is concerned.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent – State. Perused the records.
3. The factual matrix of the case disclose that the victim girl by name - Ramya was given in marriage to accused No.1 – Naveena, who is the son of the petitioners, about three years ago. Prior to the incident, at the time of marriage, on demand some dowry was given along with some gold articles after the marriage also. It is alleged that all the accused persons were demanding for further dowry and gold articles etc., In this context, it is specifically alleged that on 07.06.2019 in the evening at about 8.00 p.m. the complainant, who is the father of the deceased received a phone call from the deceased that the accused persons have ill-treated and harassed her for demand of money on the ground that the complainant has sold his arecanut garden and he is having money. Therefore, they forced the deceased to secure that money from the complainant. The deceased called the complainant to come to the house of the accused. On 08.06.2019 in the morning at about 6.00 a.m., the complainant and one Kanthraj, both of them had been to the house of the accused conducted panchyath and returned back. On the same day at about 9.30 a.m. when the complainant was in the house, he received telephonic message from accused No.1-Naveena that her daughter has consumed some pesticide. Immediately, they rushed to THS Hospital. By the time complainant reached the hospital, the deceased was declared as dead in the hospital. On these allegations, complaint came to be lodged and police are still investigating the matter.
4. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, the first petitioner being a lady, who is aged more than 50 years and there is no specific distinct allegations against that lady with regard to the demand of dowry etc., the above circumstances falls within the proviso to Section 437 of Cr.P.C, as the offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not punishable compulsorily with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the facts of the case, and the first petitioner being a lady, in my opinion as she has been in judicial custody since 08.06.2019, she is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:-
ORDER The Petition is partly allowed. Consequently, the first petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.76/2019 of Chelur Police Station registered against her for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The first petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000./- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The first petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The first petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The first petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against her is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB