Allowed

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

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2020CRL.P/101155/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that custody of the petitioners is not required as investigation is completed and charge-sheet filed. Bail allowed on execution of bond and standard conditions to prevent tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners-accused Nos. 1 to 4 released on bail on security of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties subject to standard bail conditions.

Smt Devawwa W/O Late Komareppa Lingadalli Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶5

CRL.P. NO. 101155 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.DEVAWWA W/O.LATE KOMAREPPA LINGADALLI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O.BASAPUR NOW: AT CHILWADAGI TQ: DIST: KOPPAL

¶8

SRI.SHANTHAPPA S/O.BASAPPA HOSAGERI

¶9

AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. CHILWADAGI, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL

¶10

HANUMAPPA S/O.BASAPPA HOSAGERI

¶11

AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. CHILWADAGI, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL

¶12

SRI.ADEPPA S/O.BASAPPA HOSAGERI

¶13

AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. CHILWADAGI, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. ANAND R.KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

¶19

REP.BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD (THROUGH RURAL POLICE STATION KOPPAL) 580 011.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)

¶22

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED IN REGULAR BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.0162/2020 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.306 R/W.34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RURAL POLICE STATION, KOPPAL.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking to enlarge the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 4 on bail in Crime No. 162/2020 of Koppal Rural Police Station, registered for offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶26

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent – State.

¶29

It is the case of the prosecution that from the sale proceedings of ancestral properties, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was kept in a fixed deposit for a period of 10 years and that was matured. Further, in respect of acquisition of some ancestral property, sum of Rs.2 lakhs was also expected as compensation. Accused No.1 was claiming that the said amount shall be shared with her brothers. This was not liked by her deceased son namely Ningajja. In this connection, on 17.08.2020 at about 10.00 a.m. all the accused picked-up quarrel with the deceased and abused him in filthy language. They told him that he will be not given any amount. They abused him saying he is not able to beget any children and he is an impotent and therefore he does not require any property. They

¶30

¶31

insulted and instigated him to commit suicide by giving a Saari. At their instigation, the deceased committed suicide by hanging, tying the Saari to the fan in the hall of the house.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶33

submits that the entire allegations are false and the

¶34

petitioners have not abetted the deceased to commit suicide. First petitioner is a woman of advanced age and she is suffering from illness. She often needs medical treatment. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the bread earning members in their family. The petitioners are arrested on 18.08.2020 and they have been interrogated and now investigation completed, charge sheet is filed. He submits the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this

¶35

Court.

¶36

¶37

The learned HCGP opposed grant of bail to

¶38

the petitioners and sought to reject the petition.

¶39

Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the

¶40

deceased. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are maternal uncles of the deceased. The complaint is lodged by the wife of the deceased. It is alleged that the petitioners have instigated and abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Whether there was any intention on the part of the petitioners to drive the deceased to commit suicide or whether the act committed by them would amount to abetment as defined under Section 107 of IPC is a matter which has to be established by the prosecution during the course of trial.

¶41

Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. Petitioners are not required for any further interrogation. Hence, without discussing on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the

¶42

¶43

petitioners can be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

a) Petition is allowed.

¶46

b) Petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.162/2020 of Koppal Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC, shall

¶47

be released on bail subject to the following conditions:

¶48

i) Petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/ trial Court.

¶49

ii) Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly.

¶50

¶51

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

¶52

iv) Petitioners shall furnish the proof of their correct address and shall intimate regarding change of address, if any.

¶53

v) The petitioners shall be regular in attending the trial proceedings.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

lad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Devawwa W/O Late Komareppa Lingadalli 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

Kanchikeri Manjunatha @ Manjanna @ Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Chetan S/O Hanamanthappa Pujar Vs the State of Karnataka

Vijaykumar S/O Chandrashekarappa Matti Vs State of Karnataka

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

Basappa Kareppa Chandargi, Vs the State of Karnataka

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