Allowed

Smt Sarojabai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2014CRL.P/7567/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition for bail under Section 439 CrPC, the High Court granted release to petitioners accused of offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC. The court observed evidentiary doubts regarding the deceased's residence and the applicability of the charges, ruling it a fit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with one surety each, subject to conditions of bonding attendance and no tampering with witnesses.

Smt Sarojabai Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

1 Crl.P 7567/14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7567 OF 2014

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SAROJABAI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O HALESHANAIKA, R/AT SURAGONDANAKOPPA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶9

SRI HALESHNAIKA S/O RAMANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT SURAGONDANAKOPPA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶10

DINESH @ DINESHNAIKA S/O HALESHNAIK, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT SURAGONDANAKOPPA VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI: LOKESH S G, ADV)

Crl.P 7567/14

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NYAMATHI P.S. DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶17

... RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI:B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.146/2014 SUBSEQUENTLY NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.615/2014 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC. AND U/S 3, 4 OF D.P. ACT., OF RESPONDENT POLICE i.e., NYAMATHI P.S., WHICH PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADDL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) & JMFC, AT HONNALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.

¶20

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioners have approached this Court for grant of bail for having been arrested and chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

¶23

¶24

Crl.P 7567/14

¶25

The facts reveal that Sakamma, the

¶26

victim was daughter-in-law of petitioners 1 and 2, whereas third petitioner is the second son of petitioners 1 and 2. Ramesh Naik, the another son of petitioners 1 and 2 is the husband of deceased. After the marriage, the first wife had delivered a child in her parental home and at that point of time, he is said to have married the petitioner against the will of her parents and petitioners 1

¶27

and 2. It is stated by the deceased in the complaint that after the marriage, she was residing with petitioners who were insisting her to bring dowry from her parents and on 04.07.2014,

¶28

she went to the house of her parents. They did not allow her to enter their house, and at that time, the brother of deceased is said to have assaulted the deceased and later, she went to the house of petitioners. As the petitioners and her parents did not allow her to enter the house, she is said to have committed suicide by pouring

¶29

¶30

Crl.P 7567/14

¶31

kerosene. She was shifted to the hospital, but she succumbed to the burns on the same day. On the complaint of deceased, immediately after the incident, crime came to be registered and later Section 304B IPC is also inserted in view of the death of Sakamma and the petitioners were arrested in the course of investigation.

¶32

Heard the learned Counsel for both the

¶33

parties.

¶34

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that the deceased was not residing with the petitioners and having been restricted her entry to the house of her parents as well as the house of petitioners, she must have committed suicide. He submits that the petitioners are innocent and seeks to grant bail.

¶35

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail application.

¶36

¶37

Crl.P 7567/14

¶38

Perusal of the material placed on

¶39

record reveals that the deceased was the second wife in the life time of his first wife. The applicability of Sections 498A and 304B IPC is in doubt. That apart, her parents and the petitioners did not allow entry to their house. She is said to be residing separately with her husband. It may be for this reason that as she was not allowed to enter the house, she must have filed a complaint against the petitioners. Anyhow, the allegations made therein are the facts which are to be proved by the prosecution in the course of trial. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where bail has to be granted.

¶40

Consequently, the petition is allowed.

¶41

The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one surety each for the

¶42

Crl.P 7567/14

¶43

¶44

likesum to the satisfaction of Court below, with

¶45

further following conditions:

¶46

a) Petitioners shall mark their attendance in Nyamathi Police Station on every Sunday inbetween 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till the conclusion of trial.

¶47

b) They shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶48

c) They shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.

¶49

d) They shall attend the Court as and when directed.

¶50

*bgn/-

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

Smt Sarojabai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sarojabai 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

Mrs Shraddha Vs State by Mangalore South Police Station

Sri Nayaz @ Nayaz Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bande Manja @ H S Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

K M Shivalingaiah Vs State by Sub-Inspector of Police

Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Kottangada B Kariappa Vs the State of Karnataka by