Allowed

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2016CRL.P/3710/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 439 CrPC by an accused woman facing charges under Section 304 IPC for her husband's death. The Court allowed the bail petition, imposing standard conditions including self-bond, surety, and prohibition from tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on self-bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for like sum, conditioned to not leave jurisdiction, cooperate with investigation, and not tamper with evidence.

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3710/2016

¶7

BETWEEN: Smt. Bhuvaneshwari W/o Sitaram Badiger, Aged about 46 years, Occupation: Household work, Residents of Kayatanaker, Now at Suraksha Colony, Vijayapur – 586 101. (Accused in custody).

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(Shri Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka Through Vijaypur Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Represented by its State Public Prosecutor, Advocate General’s Office, High Court Building, Bangalore – 01.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

¶14

(Shri Sheshadri Jaishankar M, Government Pleader )

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Criminal No.32/2016 of Vijayapur Adarsh Nagar Police Station, Vijayapura District for the offence punishable under Section 304 of Indian Penal Code.

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶19

Government Pleader.

¶20

The petitioner is the accused and the allegations are that she is accused of offences punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for brevity). It transpires that her husband was given to drinking and in one of his drunken moods, he had tried to assault the petitioner late in the night and as a result of the scuffle that had ensued, the petitioner had struck him with a stabilizer on his face, resulting in

¶21

¶22

serious injuries leading to his death. It is in this background that the petitioner is arrayed as the accused on the basis of a complaint made in this regard.

¶23

The manner in which the death has occurred, whether it was accidental or whether it was on account of the overt act on the part of the petitioner, is a matter which would have to be proved at the trial.

¶24

When the incident has occurred within the four walls of the bedroom of the petitioner, the complainant could not have imagined the manner in which the incident had taken place. Therefore, the prosecution would have to establish its case at the trial. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶25

i. The petitioner shall furnish a self-bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

iii. The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Authority and shall attend the Court on all dates of hearing.

¶29

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

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Bhuvaneshwari v. the 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 Mahadevi Vs the State of Karnataka

Hucchappa S/O Kalappa Rajan Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhimanna S/O Mahadevappa Meti Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Bapugowda @ Babu Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Haji S/O Khasim Karemungi Vs the State through

Hanumanthappa Vs the State of Karnataka by