Allowed

Ashok Kalkappa Rampur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2019CRL.P/100444/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed by the accused husband in a case alleging marital cruelty and instigation to suicide. The court ruled that while the phrase 'go and die' does not attract Section 306 IPC, stringent bail conditions were imposed to secure the accused's presence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner-accused released on bail with a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 for him and two sureties, subject to five specific conditions including no tampering with witnesses and regular court attendanc

Ashok Kalkappa Rampur Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE 2019

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL

¶5

CRL.P.NO.100444 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

ASHOK KALKAPPA RAMPUR @ CHARAKI AGED: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUDHOL VILLAGE, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ANANT HEGDE, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY P.S.I. YELBURGA POLICE STATION, REP. THORUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 439 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 BE ORDERED TO BE RELEASED ON BAIL IN S.C. NO.58/2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOPPAL FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE U/SEC. 498A AND 306 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE REGISTERED BY YELBURGA POLICE STATION AT CRIME NO.55/2016.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail in S.C.No.58/2017 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Koppal for alleged offences under Section 498A and 306 of IPC registered by Yelburga Police Station at Crime No.55/2016.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned HCGP for respondentState.

¶20

The gist of the complaint is that the father of

¶21

the deceased filed complaint alleging that the accused person used to harass his daughter who has been given in marriage to accused, as she has not begotten a child. It is further contended that the accused advised properly to look after the daughter of the complainant, in spite of the same, harassment continued and on

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

08.06.2016 at about 4.30.p.m. she consumed the poison in the land and died at the spot. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.

¶24

It is the submission of the learned counsel

¶25

for the petitioner-accused that already charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner-accused is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. It is his further submission that earlier, in-laws were also made as accused in this case. Subsequently, when further statement of the complainant was recorded and as there is no material, the complainant has stated before the Police that they are not involved and as such they have not been arrayed as accused in the charge sheet, that itself goes to show that a false complaint has been registered by the complainant. He further submitted that six months earlier to the alleged incident accused and deceased had been to a fair and they participated in it and that itself goes to show that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was

¶26

: 4 :

¶27

cordial. It is his further submission that the sucidial tendency cannot be predicted, at any short span of time because of silly reasons, anybody can attempt for suicide. It is also his further submission that the petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prays to allow the petition.

¶28

Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused was absconding since from the date of registration and he surrendered before the Court only after one year. The conduct of the petitioner-accused is clearly goes to show that he is involved in the said offence. Further, he submitted that accused used to torture her as she has not begotten a child and because of the said act of the accused, she consumed the poison. She also submitted that accused always used to tell the deceased to go and die and as such she committed suicide by consuming poison and she also submitted that if petitioner-accused

¶29

: 5 :

¶30

is enlarged on bail, again he may abscond and may not

¶31

be available for trial. On these grounds she prays to dismiss the petition.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶33

As could be seen from the complaint, though

¶34

it is contended that because of the torture and ill treatment, the deceased has consumed the poison but the word which has been used by the accused ‘go and die’ will not attract Section 306 of IPC. Even on the material which has been placed on record, does not support to show that the act of the accused either abates or instigates to commit the suicide, only allegation is that she has not begotten a child, the said allegatin has been considered and appreciated only at

¶35

the time of trial and the offences alleged against the accused are not punishable with death or imprisonment

¶36

: 6 :

¶37

for the life. Under the said facts and circumstances by imposing certain stringent conditions, he may be enlarged on bail.

¶38

Under the facts and circumstances of the

¶39

case, the petition is allowed. Petitioner-accused is released on bail in Crime No.55/2016 of Yelburga Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC with the following conditions:-

¶40

i) The petitioner-accused shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶41

ii) He shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶42

iii) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.

¶43

: 7 :

¶44

iv) He shall regularly attend the trial without missing the dates.

¶45

v) He shall mark his attendance once in a month on every 1^st of month till trial is concluded.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE Hmb

Ashok Kalkappa Rampur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kalkappa Rampur 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

The State of Karnataka Vs Mohammad Rafiq S/O Moulasab Nadaf

The Mahalingapur Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vs Husainsab S/O Abdulsab Raichur

State of Karnataka Vs Smt.Fatimabi M. Shaikh D/O M.A. Shaikh

Govindreddi S/O Rangappa Jayi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Sanjay @ Nanu S/O Chandrakanth Patarkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Satyavva W/O Bhimappa Byli Vs the State of Karnataka