Disposed

Smt Venkatalakshmi W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2020CRL.P/101117/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P. No.101117/2020. Court disposed of a bail modification petition seeking to impose a condition of no approach on the place of incident against the accused daughter-in-law to prevent disturbance of peace. Petitioner sought parity with other accused.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent not to commit similar offences and not to disturb peace and harmony; third-party copy of order to be furnished.

Smt Venkatalakshmi W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy Vs the State… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P.NO.101117/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT VENKATALAKSHMI W/O LATE MALLIKARJUN REDDY AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.10, "D" BLOCK, BESIDE BALLARI CLUB, VEERANAGOUDA COLONY, BALLARI-583101.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADV.)

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH COWLBAZAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI, NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. PIN-587008

¶12

¶13

2 . SMT. SHWETA W/O J. SUDHAKAR REDDY AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER, R/O: HOUSE NO.203/1, WARD NO.29, RAMANJINEYA NAGAR, BELAGAL ROAD, CANTONMENT, BALLARI. PIN-583101.

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.439 (1)(B) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO MODIFY THE CONDITIONS BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL THAT “ACCUSED NO.3 SHALL NOT ENTER THE PLACE OF INCIDENT I.E. COMPLAINANT’S HOUSE, PLOT NO.10, ‘D’ BLOCK, VEERANAGOUDA COLONY, BALLARI TILL DISPOSAL OF THE CASE’ AND ANY OTHER CONDITION AS DEEMED FIT IN CRL.MISC.NO.344/2020 DATED 26/8/2020 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARY.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In this petition, the first informant in Crime No.101/2020 of Cowlbazar Police Station is seeking to impose a condition on respondent

¶20

¶21

No.2/accused No.3, not to enter the place of incident, i.e complainant’s house, Plot No.10, ‘D’ Block, Veeranagouda Colony, Bellary, till the disposal of the case etc.

¶22

Respondent No.2 is served but

¶23

unrepresented.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Srinand A. Pachchapure submits that insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, this Court while granting bail to them in Crl.P. No.101067/2020 vide order dated 24/9/2020 has imposed a condition amongst others that the said accused shall not go near the house of the complainant. He submits that the 2^nd respondent is enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge and no such condition was imposed. He further submits that number of litigations are pending between the parties and if such a

¶25

¶26

condition is not imposed, the accused will disturb peace and harmony by visiting the house of complainant. He therefore submits that similar condition may be imposed against respondent No.2/accused No.3.

¶27

On the basis of a complaint lodged by

¶28

the petitioner herein, the aforesaid case was registered against 7 accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354(D), 334, 506, 354(C), 354(B), 509, 341, 307, 355, 504, 448, 323, 354, 324 and 443 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶29

Respondent No.2 herein is arraigned as accused No.3. She is the daughter in law of the complainant. Accused Nos.1 and 2 are her parents. This Court while enlarging accused Nos.2 and 3 on bail among other conditions imposed a condition that they shall not go near the house of the complainant. Insofar as the

¶30

¶31

petitioner is concerned, such a condition cannot

¶32

be imposed. However, keeping in view the dispute between parties and the present criminal case registered against respondent No.2 and other accused persons, it is just and proper to direct the second respondent not to commit similar offence and not to disturb peace and harmony. With the said observation the petition is disposed.

¶33

The learned HCGP shall furnish a copy of this order to the second respondent through the jurisdictional police. It is needless to mention that if any of the conditions are violated, the accused shall not be entitled to the benefit of the order granting bail.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Vmb

Smt Venkatalakshmi W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Venkatalakshmi W/O Late Mallikarjun Reddy 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

Smt Devawwa W/O Late Komareppa Lingadalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mallikarjun S/O Ramakrishna Hadapad Vs the State of Karnataka

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Shantha Kumara S @ S. Shanthakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Pooja W/O Raju Talukar Vs the State of Karnataka