The High Court of Karnataka rejected an application to cancel an anticipatory bail order and order of bail granted to the mother-in-law in a dowry harassment case. The court held that since witness statements centered drowning the trial and no specific reasons existed to invoke power to cancel bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.927/2021
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA, REPT. BY STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, BENGALURU-560001. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
AND:
(SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 ABATED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (a) CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER DATED 25.10.2019 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1026/2019 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 498(A), 304(B) READ WITH 34 OF IPC (b) DIRECT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENT TO BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The police report shows that respondent No.1 is no more and along with the report, certificate of death of respondent No.1 is placed on record. Hence, the case against respondent No.1 is abated.
3
Crl.Misc.No.1026/2019 filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. made an observation that the allegation of dowry harassment requires full fledged trial and it is not necessary to keep them behind the bar and comes to the conclusion that the petition requires to be allowed.
contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner-State that witnesses have given statement regarding subjecting her for dowry harassment, the same is a matter of trial and only based on the statement of the witnesses, it is not appropriate to keep respondent No.2 in custody. Hence, I do not find any reasons to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail.
following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
MD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail granted to the accused in a dowry harassment case.
Whether the trial court was correct in concluding that the allegations require a full-fledged trial and bail was appropriate.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHITRADURGA, REPT. BY STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, BENGALURU-560001
G. NINGAPPA NISHANI MALLAPPA @ G.N.MALLAPPA
MEENAKSHAMMA
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
