Allowed

Smt Neela v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2020CRL.P/4574/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed two Criminal Petitions filed by accused persons seeking bail/enlargement in a criminal case involving dowry death allegations. The court held that custodial interrogation and custody were not required as the investigation was completed and no specific material indicated their necessity.

What did the court decide?

Allowed Crl.P.No.4466/2020 and Crl.P.No.4574/2020, enlarging petitioners on bail subject to furnishing bonds (Rs.1,00,000) and standard conditions.

Smt Neela Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4466/2020 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.4574/2020

¶6

IN CRL.P.No.4466/2020:

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Kum. Radha, D/o. Puttaswamy, Aged about 20 years, R/at Yakkulli Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District – 562 117. …Petitioner (By Sri. H.C. Hanumaiah, Advocate) AND:

¶9

State of Karnataka, By Kodihalli Police Station, Ramanagara District. Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya, HCGP)

¶10

¶11

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Cr.No.80/2020 of Kodihalli P.S., Ramanagara District, for the offence P/U/S 498A, 304B read with 149 of IPC.

¶12

IN CRL.P.No.4574/2020:

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

Smt. Neela, W/o. Puttaswamy, Aged about 40 years, R/at Salabanni Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District – 562 117.

¶15

Sri. Puttaswamy, S/o. Chikkasiddegowda, Aged about 50 years, R/at Salabanni Village, Kodihalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District – 562 117. …Petitioners

¶16

(By Sri. H.C. Hanumaiah, Advocate)

AND:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.No.80/2020 registered by Kodihalli Police Station, Ramanagara, for the offences P/U/S 498-A, 304-B read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶21

These Criminal petitions coming on for Orders, this day, the Court through video conference made the following:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Crl.P.No.4466/2020 is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.5. Crl.P.No.4574/2020 is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.2 and 7. Charge sheet is laid against eight accused persons under Sections 498A, 304B r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that the deceased

¶25

was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 23.06.2019. At the time of marriage, 20 grams of gold chain and finger ring weighing 10 grams were given to accused No.1 by way of dowry; inspite of it, accused No.1 and other accused persons were ill-treating and harassing the deceased for not

¶26

¶27

satisfying their demand for further dowry by way of cash and gold ornaments.

¶28

In the charge sheet it is alleged that in this connection there were earlier complaints against the petitioners, yet the accused persons continued their illtreatment and harassment. Deceased is stated to have committed suicide by hanging in the land of accused No.1 on 17.07.2020. The material allegations in the charge sheet are directed mainly against accused No.1. It is not the case of the prosecution that dowry was given to accused No.1. The material on record does not indicate that the petitioners were residing in the matrimonial home along with the deceased and accused No.1.

¶29

Moreover, investigation in the case having been

¶30

completed, having regard to the general allegations leveled against the petitioners, in my view, the custody of the petitioners in Crl.P.No.4574/2020 is not required either for the purpose of further investigation or for the purpose of trial. Likewise, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner

¶31

¶32

in Crl.P.No.4466/2020 is also not necessary. There is nothing on record to show that Investigating Agency has made any attempt to secure the presence of accused No.5 during investigation. For the above reasons, petitions deserves to be allowed.

¶33

Hence, the following order:-

¶34

Criminal petition No.4466/2020 is allowed . The petitioner/accused No.5 is directed to appear before the jurisdictional Court within 15 days from the date of this order and on her appearance, she shall be enlarged on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:-

¶35

i) The petitioner/accused No.5 shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

¶36

ii) She shall appear before the Court as and when required;

¶37

iii) She shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner;

¶38

¶39

iv) She shall not get involved in similar offences; and

¶40

v) She shall not leave the territorial limits of the trial Court without prior permission.

¶41

Criminal petition No.4574/2020 is allowed.

¶42

i) Petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 7 are ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each with two sureties each for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court.

¶43

ii) They shall appear before the court as and when required.

¶44

iii) They shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.

¶45

iv) They shall not get involved in similar offences.

¶46

¶47

v) They shall not leave the territorial limits of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Smt Neela v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Neela 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

Sri. Shashidharan B Vs the Station House Officer

Sri Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shambaiah Vs Sri. B. G. Nageshwara Rao @ Prakash

K M Prasanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Krishna Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka