Allowed

Mrs Vishalakshi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2014CRL.P/7155/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted bail to petitioners arrested or apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 302, 304B, 498A and 114 IPC and the DP Act. The order noted petitioners were not close relatives of main accused and imposed specific bond amounts and supervision conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on personal bonds ranging from Rs.50,000 to 1,00,000 with respective sureties, subject to periodic police appearance and conditions against witness tampering.

Mrs Vishalakshi Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

-1CRL.P.No.7816/2014 C/w CRL.P.Nos.7817 & 7155 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7816/2014

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7817/2014 CRIMINAL PETITION No.7155/2014

¶9

IN CRL.P.NO.7816/2014

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

BOREGOWDA, S/O.LATE ANDANIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/T HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHELANERE HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI CHANDRAPPA.K.N, ADV.) AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, K.R.PET RURAL POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426. ... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.162/14 OF K.R.PET RURAL P.S, MANDYA,FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 114, 302, 304B R/W 149 OF IPC. AND U/S 3, 4, AND 6 OF D.P. ACT.

¶15

-2-

¶16

CRL.P.No.7816/2014 C/w CRL.P.Nos.7817 & 7155 of 2014

¶17

IN CRL.P.NO.7817/2014

¶18

BETWEEN:

¶19

KUMARA, S/O.LATE NAGANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HONNENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, K.R.PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426. ... PETITIONER

¶20

(BY SRI CHANDRAPPA.K.N, ADV.)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, K.R.PET RURAL POLICE STATION, MANDYA DISTRICT-571426. ... RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

¶24

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.162/14 OF K.R.PET RURAL P.S, MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 114, 302, 304B R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶25

IN CRL.P.NO.7155/2014

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

MRS VISHALAKSHI, (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS VAISHALI IN THE FIR), W/O MR. UMESH, AGED 35 YEARS.

¶28

MR UMESH, S/O MR. BELLADA NANDANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

¶29

BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.1035, 5^TH CROSS,

¶30

-3CRL.P.No.7816/2014 C/w CRL.P.Nos.7817 & 7155 of 2014

¶31

SUBHASH NAGAR, K.R. PET TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 426. ... PETITIONERS

¶32

(BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADV.)

¶33

AND:

¶34

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY K.R.PET RURAL POLICE, MANDYA DISTRICT, THROUGH THE S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENT

¶35

(BY SRI B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

¶36

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETRS. ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME NO.162/14 OF K.R.PET RURAL P.S., MANDYA, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 114, 302, 304(B) R/W 149 OF IPC. AND U/S 3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P. ACT.

¶37

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

While the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7816/2014 has

¶40

approached this Court for grant of bail having been arrested in Cr.No.162/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 114, 302, 304B R/W 149 of IPC, the petitioners in other petitions have sought for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest for the aforesaid crime.

¶41

CRL.P.No.7816/2014 C/w CRL.P.Nos.7817 & 7155 of 2014

¶42

-4-

¶43

The facts relevant for the purpose of these

¶44

petitions are as under:

¶45

The marriage of Shurthi (the deceased) with accused No.1 was held on 11.08.2008. The prosecution alleges that there was an insistment to give the dowry and a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid about three years back. Even thereafter, there was harassment on the deceased by the accused persons who are her husband’s father, mother, sister and brother and her husband. It is alleged that on 20.05.2014 at 11.00 a.m., the deceased was harassed and ultimately accused Nos.1 to 3 said to have hanged her with the use of plastic rope in the cattle shed. Thereafter, she is said to have been taken to the hospital and on 22.05.2004 at 6.00 a.m., she died. A complaint was filed by the brother of the deceased and in the course of the investigation, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7816/2014 has been arrested and other petitioners are apprehending arrest for the aforesaid crime.

¶46

-5-

¶47

CRL.P.No.7816/2014 C/w CRL.P.Nos.7817 & 7155 of 2014

¶48

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that accused No.6 is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7816/2014 whereas accused No.9 is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.7817/2014 and accused Nos.7 and 8 are the petitioners in the other petition. As contended by them, they are not close relatives of accused Nos.1 to 3. Accused Nos.7 and 8 are the aunt and uncle of accused No.1 through his mother whereas accused No.6-Boregowda is the paternal uncle and the relationship of accused No.9 is not stated anywhere

¶49

in the complaint except stating that he is a relative. The aforesaid petitioners are not members

¶50

of the family of accused Nos.1 to 3. They did not have much interest so far as the claim of accused Nos.1 to 3 for dowry.

¶51

As could be seen from the post mortem

¶52

report, the death was due to hanging and except one injury on the lower lip and ligature mark on the neck, there are not other injuries. Though it is alleged in the complaint that there was an assault on

¶53

-6-

¶54

CRL.P.No.7816/2014 C/w CRL.P.Nos.7817 & 7155 of 2014

¶55

the deceased, no such material through medical evidence is made available. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners are not close relatives of accused Nos.1 to 3 and the possibility of implicating the other relatives of the main accused, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to the bail sought for.

¶56

In the circumstance, the petitions are

¶57

allowed. In Crl.No.7816/2014, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Court below. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.7817/2014 and 7155/2014 in Cr.No.162/2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 114, 302, 304B R/W 149 of IPC,

¶58

they are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/each with two solvent sureties each for the likesum

¶59

-7-

¶60

CRL.P.No.7816/2014 C/w CRL.P.Nos.7817 & 7155 of 2014

¶61

to the satisfaction of the arresting authorities with

¶62

further following conditions:

¶63

i) Petitioners shall appear before the Court regularly; ii) Petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.7817/2014 and 7155/2014 shall appear before the respondent-police within ten days from today.

¶64

iii) They shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Sunday in between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. until further orders.

¶65

iv) They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses or the material evidence;

¶66

v) Violation of any one of the above conditions would result in cancellation of this bail order.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

Mrs Vishalakshi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Vishalakshi v. State of Karnataka

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

Beerappa @ Beeregowda C Vs Ananda

Beerappa @ Beeregowda C Vs S R Krishnappa

Sri Balabadruni Suresh @ Vs State by D.J.Halli Police Station

Gurudath Vs State of Karanataka

Sunilkumar @ Gopi Vs State by Kadugodi Police

Naveena Vs the State of Karnataka