Allowed

Shri. Bheema Shankar @W Bheem Rao and Anr. v. the State through

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2013CRL.P/15062/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed an application for anticipatory bail for the second petitioner, Shantabai, who was suffering from cancer and denied bail by the lower court with no stated reasons and specific allegations against her.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner no.2 is enlarged on anticipatory bail subject to execution of a bond, leave to leave jurisdiction, appearing before the IO, and not tampering with evidence.

Shri. Bheema Shankar @W Bheem Rao and Anr. Vs the State… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15062/2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Bheema Shankar @ Bheem Rao, S/o Chandrappa Biradar, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, Taluk: Aurad, District: Bidar.

¶9

Shantabai W/o Chandrappa Biradar, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household, Taluk: Aurad, District: Bidar.

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(By Shri Ravi B Patil, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

The State through Rural Police, Bhalki.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(By Shri S S Aspalli, Government Pleader)

¶16

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to grant an order of anticipatory bail favoring the petitioners in respect of the arrest proposed to be made in Crime No.154/2012 registered by the respondent Rural Police Station Bhalki, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶18

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following :-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the

¶21

learned Government Pleader.

¶22

The Counsel for the petitioners seeks withdraw the petition insofar as petitioner no.1 is concerned. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, are accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1890 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity) and Sections 3,4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DP Act’, for brevity).

¶23

¶24

The background is as follows:-

¶25

The first petitioner had married one Vijayalaskhmi on 14.3.2012 and in December, Vijayalakshmi was pregnant by five months and it transpires that her father-in-law had taken her to a hospital for a regular check-up and he had gone his way and she was to return home. But however, she did not return. It was later found that she had drowned in Manjra river apparently having committed suicide, as there were no marks of violence on her body. Hence, it was claimed, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, that though petitioner no.1 had been provided dowry at the time of marriage, he and his family members were not satisfied with the same and were constantly demanding more money and other valuables, which lead to constant harassment and cruelty being inflicted on the deceased. It is this which had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. The petitioners having approached the court below, seeking anticipatory bail, the court

¶26

¶27

below has thought it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the father and the brother of petitioner no.1, but however, has rejected the bail petition of petitioner no.2.

¶28

Insofar as petitioner no.2 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that she is suffering from Secondary Stage of Cancer and she requires constant treatment. The certificates to establish the same were produced before the court below. The court having considered the said certificates, has not stated any reasons as to why petitioner no.2 could not be enlarged on bail. This is especially so when there were no specific allegations made in the complaint against the said petitioner no.2, of having harassed or inflicted cruelty on the deceased. When the court below has thought it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the father and brother of petitioner no.1, it is indeed unfortunate that the court below has not thought it fit to grant bail to petitioner no.2, who is in dire need of medical treatment and she being remanded to judicial custody, which is

¶29

¶30

a strong probability, would lead to serious complications and may even endanger her life.

¶31

The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioners are accused of a heinous offence and petitioner no.2 being the mother-in-law was instrumental in the constant harassment and cruelty and would submit that there is a clear allegation against petitioner no.2 by the complainant and seeks to take this court through the complaint.

¶32

The allegation that is made is a general allegation against all the family members, namely, the father, mother, the husband - petitioner no.1 and his brother. Therefore, the court below having thought it fit to grant bail to the father and the brother, therefore, by parity of reasoning, petitioner no.2 would also be entitled to bail, especially, being a woman, who is seriously ill.

¶33

¶34

Therefore, the petition is allowed insofar as petitioner

¶35

no.2 is concerned. Petitioner no.2 shall be enlarged on anticipatory bail, in the event of her arrest, subject to the following conditions:-

¶36

(1) Petitioner no.2 shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the court below,

¶37

(2) Petitioner no.2 shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court,

¶38

(3) Petitioner no.2 shall appear before the Investigation Officer as and when required and shall co-operate in the conduct of the investigation, and

¶39

(4) Petitioner no.2 shall not, in any manner, seek to

¶40

tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Shri. Bheema Shankar @W Bheem Rao and Anr. v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bheema Shankar @W Bheem Rao and Anr. v. the State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivayya S/O Bassayya Guttedar Vs State of Karnataka through Revoor Police Station

Pradeep S/O Prakash Dadge Vs the State of Karnataka

Sidaramreddy S/O Venkatreddy Vs Smt. Sugamma W/O Sidramreddy and Ors.

Ayyappa S/O Sheshappa Bhodike Vs the State of Karnataka through Cpi, Chittapur Ps

Laxman S/O Gundappa and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka through and Anr.

Nayeem Khan S/O Alm Khan Vs the State through Grameen Ps