Allowed

Yallawwa D/O Yallappa Bagewadi @ Gollar v. the State of Karnataka R/by Addl.Spp Circuit Bench

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2013CRL.P/15108/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to Yallawwa, accused in a murder and 498-A case, finding prima facie evidence lacking regarding her instigation of suicide. She shall offer a self-bond of Rs. 25,000 with a surety and abide by specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail subject to offering self-bond of Rs. 25,000 with surety, not leaving jurisdiction without leave, cooperating in investigation, and not tampering with evidence.

Yallawwa D/O Yallappa Bagewadi @ Gollar Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15108 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Yallawwa D/o Yallappa Bagewadi, @ Gollar, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o Gollaroni, Sindagi, District: Bijapur.

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(Shri Shivanand V Pattanshetti, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka Represented by Additional State Public Prosecutor, Circuit Bench, Gulbarga.

¶13

… Respondent

¶14

(Shri Sanjay A Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to grant the regular bail to the petitioner in C.C.No.89/2012 (Sindagi Police Station Crime No.94/2012) pending on the file of JMFC Court Sindagi, which

¶16

¶17

is registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶18

This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent.

¶21

The petitioner is accused No.2 in the following background:

¶22

It transpires that one Shiraj of Almel was the complainant and accused No.1 Altaf Bairamadagi was married to his sister Shamshad Begaum about 12 years prior to the incident. It transpires that Altaf had developed an illicit relationship with the present petitioner and he was inclined to bring her home in the presence of the deceased. This had caused much pain to the deceased, who complained that she would not tolerate another woman in the house. This had lead to accused No.1, with the active assistance of accused No.2, according to the prosecution,

¶23

¶24

to harass the deceased and ill-treat her in order to make her reconcile to the fact that Altaf and the present petitioner would continue to have their relationship. This compelled the deceased to complain about the situation to her mother and other family members including the complainant. Therefore, in order to reassure the deceased of their support, had arranged for a niece of the deceased to stay in the first floor portion of the house, which was occupied by Altaf and the deceased. It transpires that on 22.04.2012 accused No.1 had brought the present petitioner home in the middle of the night. This had resulted in an altercation breaking out between the deceased and accused, and had woken up the witnesses namely CW-11 and CW-12, who were in the first floor portion of the house and who had clearly heard the argument that ensued between the deceased and the accused and since they were apprehensive of Altaf’s reaction, they did not come out of the house, but witnessed the entire incident through the window and according to them it is at 3.00 AM in the morning that they were informed

¶25

¶26

that the deceased had died, as a result of drowning and it was their belief that the accused had committed the murder and thrown her into the well. In any event, the police on investigation, on the basis of the said complaint, has registered a case of abetment of suicide against the accused for having instigated the commission of suicide by the deceased. It is on this basis, that the case has been registered and the petitioner as well as Altaf are in judicial custody. The petitioner having approached the Court below for bail, the same has been rejected

¶27

as the Court has found that there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner.

¶28

In the facts and circumstances, it is not the case of the prosecution that CW-11 and CW-12 have actually witnessed the commission of murder or suicide either by the accused or the deceased, respectively. It is their assertion however, that immediately preceding the death of the deceased, there was an altercation and this was a constant affair, which instigated the

¶29

¶30

deceased to commit suicide, which has been accepted by the prosecution in initiating the proceedings. Given the circumstances, the instigation by the petitioner to drive the deceased to commit suicide is apparently not forthcoming. The fact that she was having affair with Altaf, even if accepted, it could not lead to the presumption that she had instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the petitioner is certainly entitled to bail, being a woman from another community other than one to which accused No.1 belonged and the fact that though accused No.1 could have taken a second wife, he had not done so, would not lead to the presumption that the present petitioner was living along with Altaf and therefore, to presume that there was constant harassment by the petitioner who instigated the deceased to commit suicide, cannot be accepted, on the face of it. The occasional visits of the petitioner to the house of Altaf, if could be accepted, the same would not make out a case of instigation by the petitioner,

¶31

¶32

which could have driven the deceased to commit suicide.

¶33

Therefore, a case for bail has been made out by the petitioner.

¶34

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner

¶35

shall be enlarged on bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶36

i. The petitioner shall offer self bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with a solvent surety for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶37

ii. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court below without the leave of the Court.

¶38

iii. The petitioner shall offer all cooperation in the investigation of the offence.

¶39

iv. The petitioner shall not, in any manner seek to tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶40

Sd/- JUDGE

¶41

swk

Yallawwa D/O Yallappa Bagewadi @ Gollar v. the State of Karnataka R/by Addl.Spp Circuit Bench

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yallawwa D/O Yallappa Bagewadi @ Gollar v. the State of Karnataka R/by Addl.Spp Circuit Bench

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

Sri. Beerappa S/O Mallappa Balichakra Vs the State through Yadgir Town Ps

Arun S/O Appu (Ha) and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka

Srinivas S/O Yankappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shaikh Jafar S/O Shaikh Rukmuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka through Excise P.S.

Mousin Ahmed S/O Mahimoddo Ali Jamadar and Ors. Vs the State through Grameen P.S., Gulbarga

Dattu @ Dattatraya S/O Shantappa Navale Vs the State of Karnataka through Ashok Nagar Ps