Allowed

Amaravathi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2022CRL.P/6986/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Krishna district court allowed a bail petition filed by the mother-in-law under Section 439 Cr.P.C. She was charged with dowry harassment (498A IPC) under the death of her daughter. Considering her cancer diagnosis and lack of cruelty allegations soon before death, bail was granted subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail in Crime No.138/2022 subject to execution of bond with two sureties and standard bail conditions.

Amaravathi Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6986 of 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AMARAVATHI W/O MUNISHETTY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT; SULIKUNTE VILLAGE, BANGARAPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A.CHETHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARAPET POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY; SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. S.VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.138/2022 REGISTERED BY BANGARPET POLICE STATION, K.G.F. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304(B) R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL

¶17

¶18

CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C., BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING;

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

learned HCGP for respondent/State and perused the material on record.

¶23

Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C to enlarge her on bail in Crime No.138/2022 of Bangarpet Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 304(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

In the complaint lodged by the victim's father,

¶25

it is averred that his only daughter by name Keerthi was given in marriage to one Sudhakar i.e., accused No.1, a resident of Sulikunte Village and in their wedlock they have a daughter aged about one and half years. She was residing with her husband, their daughter and parents-in-law in Sulikunte Village. Both accused

¶26

¶27

Nos.1 and 2 were picking up quarrel and giving her physical and mental torture and in this regard, a panchayath was convened. Since six months the deceased was staying along with her husband and daughter in a rented house at Jayanagara, Kolar. The accused persons were ill-treating the deceased for not bringing any dowry, which was being informed by the deceased. Further, whenever the deceased was visiting Sulikunte village, even her mother-in-law i.e., petitioner herein, was also harassing her for not bringing dowry. It is alleged that on account of the said physical and mental torture meted to the deceased, she along with her one and half year old daughter committed suicide by jumping into the well situated in the land of one Seenappa, in Sulikunte village.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends

¶29

that even according to the prosecution, the deceased was staying separately along with her husband and daughter in Jayanagara, Kolar since six months and it is

¶30

¶31

not forthcoming from the complaint as to what was the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. He contends that there is no material to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. He contends that the petitioner is staying at Sulikunte village which is about 30 kms away from Vijayanagar, Kolar where the deceased was living along with her husband and daughter. He further submits that petitioner is a cancer patient and because of her detention, her health is deteriorating. Therefore, prays that by imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶32

Learned HCGP on the other hand has opposed grant of bail to the petitioner contending that there are specific allegations in the complaint that even this petitioner was ill-treating the deceased for dowry. He submits that the investigation is still pending and therefore, at this stage petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought in this petition.

¶33

¶34

Perused the complaint averments. It is stated

¶35

that after the panchayath was convened, since six months the deceased has been residing along with her husband and daughter as well as her grandmother. It is alleged that even thereafter her husband namely accused No.1 was harassing her stating that she has not brought any dowry at the time of marriage and he was demanding to handover the pension received by her grandmother and also insisting her to bring dowry from her parental home. In so far as the petitioner who is the mother-in-law is concerned, some omnibus allegations are made that even she was harassing the deceased whenever the deceased was visiting Sulikunte village. Admittedly, deceased is not staying with the petitioner. It is not forthcoming in the complaint that this petitioner has subjected the deceased to cruelty soon before her death.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished copies of the medical reports i.e.,

¶37

¶38

Histopathology Test Report. According to the clinical data, she has developed buccal mucosa which shows that she is suffering from mouth cancer.

¶39

Petitioner is a woman. She was arrested on 24.05.2022 and she has been interrogated. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering her medical condition, she can be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Accordingly following:-

¶40

ORDER

¶41

(i) Petition is allowed.

¶42

(ii) The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in Crime No.138/2022 of Bangarpet Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 304(B) R/w Section 34 of IPC, subject to following conditions:-

¶43

(a) The petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

¶44

¶45

(b) Petitioner shall furnish her address proof and shall inform the I.O/Court if there is any change in the address.

¶46

¶47

(d) Petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall make available for the purpose of investigation whenever necessary.

¶48

(e) Petitioner shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Amaravathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amaravathi 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

Smt Seema B a Vs Sri Paramesha M

Sri Dhanraj Vs State of Karnataka

Geetha G Vs State of Karnataka by

Ms. Reena Mishra Vs Mr Mohith Mishra

Sri M v Vijay Vs Sri Avinash

Sri S M Ravi Kumar Vs Sri Devarayalu