Allowed

Sri Anjaneppa v. the State through the Inspector of Police

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2022CRL.P/5900/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC. The court noted a lack of proximity between the alleged harassment 12 years prior and the sudden death of the wife, finding no basis to invoke Section 306 IPC. Bail was granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail upon arrest in Crime No.58/2022 subject to conditions of surrender, executing bond, not tampering with witnesses, cooperation, not leaving jurisdiction, and monthly attenda

Sri Anjaneppa Vs the State through the Inspector… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5900/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ANJANEPPA, S/O YAMUNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, COOLIE WORKER, R/O MARABANAHALLI, CHANNAGIRI TQ, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 331. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE - THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALEBENNUR POLICE STATION, DAVANGERE TQ. (REP BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-01). ...RESPONDENT

¶12

(BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.58/2022 OF MALEBENNUR P.S., DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A AND 306 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HARIHAR.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in respect of Crime No.58/2022 registered by Malebennur Police Station, Davanagere, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the brother of the victim lodged a complaint stating that the victim’s marriage was solemnized with this petitioner 12 years back and after the marriage, this petitioner subjected her for both mental and physical harassment. That on 24.03.2022 at around 7.00 a.m., the petitioner made a phone call and informed that Ratnamma passed away and his father was not keeping good health and hence uncles and relatives went to Marabanahalli village and in the meanwhile, the sister of the complainant was missing and they revealed that she left the house quarrelling with them and thereafter missing complaint

¶20

¶21

was given and on the next day, dead body was found and hence case is registered against the petitioner.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no proximity to cause of death and the offence under Section 306 of IPC does not attract against the petitioner. The other allegation against the petitioner is that he subjected the victim for mental and physical harassment, but marriage was solemnized 12 years ago and there were no issues and the reason for death is also because she was not having any issues and the allegation is to be probed and the petitioner is ready to obey the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶23

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would submit that there is no death note, but she left the house quarrelling with the petitioner and in the complaint the same is mentioned and the matter requires to be probed and hence the presence of the petitioner is required.

¶24

Having heard the respective learned counsel and also

¶25

on perusal of the material available on record, the marriage was taken place 12 years ago and there are no issues and in order to

¶26

¶27

invoke Section 306 of IPC, there must be proximity to cause of death and taking extreme step of committing suicide. When such being the material available on record, it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with conditions.

¶28

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶29

following:

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.58/2022 registered by Malebennur Police Station, Davanagere, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A

¶32

and 306 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:

¶33

(i) The petitioner shall surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within ten days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer.

¶34

¶35

(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.

¶36

(iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and he shall appear before the Investigating Officer, as and when called for.

¶37

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission till the charge-sheet is filed or for a period of three months, whichever is earlier.

¶38

(v) The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month i.e., on 30^th of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., before the Investigating Officer for a period of three months or till the charge-sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sri Anjaneppa v. the State through the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Anjaneppa v. the State through the Inspector of Police

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

Manjunatha Vs the State

Sri. Reddappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Somachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Naveena @ Subsidy Naveena Vs the State of Karnataka

Dayananda Vs State of Karnataka

Anthony Raj. B, Vs the State of Karnataka