Allowed

Sannamma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Apr 2023CRL.P/823/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to two female accused in a marital dispute case involving dowry death. The court directed their appearance for investigation while imposing conditions including surrendering to custody for investigation and not leaving the district.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition was allowed granting anticipatory bail, directing the petitioners to appear for investigation, undergo custodial investigation, and adhere to specific bond conditions.

Sannamma Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 823 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 823 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SANNAMMA

¶9

W/O. LATE GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, BOTH ARE NOW RESIDING AT NO.1/38, AMBEDKAR ROAD, DEVAIAHANAHUNDI SRIRAMPURA II STAGE MYSURU – 570008

¶10

MEENAKSHI S/O. MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BOTH ARE NOW RESIDING AT NO.1/38, AMBEDKAR ROAD, DEVAIAHANAHUNDI SRIRAMPURA II STAGE MYSURU - 570008

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. K. HEMANTH KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI SHRIHARI H ARKACHARI., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SARASWATHIPURAM P.S., MYSURU, REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.VINAYAKA V. S., HCGP)

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 823 of 2023

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.27/2022 OF SARASWATHIPURAM P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 304B, 498A R/W 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri K. Hemanth Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader. Perused the records.

¶24

This Petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:

¶25

“WHEREFORE, it is prayed that in view of the above stated facts, circumstances and grounds it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Pass an Order of Anticipatory Bail protecting the petitioner from being arrested in Crime No.27/2022 by Saraswathipuram Police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 304B and Section 498-A read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1986, in the interest of Justice and Equity.”

¶26

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶27

3 - CRL.P No. 823 of 2023

¶28

One Mahadevashetty S/o. Madappa lodged a complaint before the Saraswathipuram Police Station, Mysuru, which was registered in Crime No.27/2022 on 15.2.2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 149 IPC against the petitioner and others.

¶29

The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the daughter of the complainant by name Nandini was married to Vijay, first accused on 2.12.2019 and thereafter, there was humiliation imparted to the daughter of the complainant on the pretext of demand of additional dowry and ultimately on 15.2.2022 at about 1.30 p.m., the accused No.1 called another daughter of the complainant and informed that her elder sister is seriously ill and therefore, and they required to visit Kamakshi Hospital. They visited the Kamakshi Hospital and noticed that his daughter is no more and she has committed suicide by hanging.

¶30

Police after registering the case investigated the matter thoroughly and filed charge sheet.

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 823 of 2023

¶33

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 3 and they are

¶34

Mother in law and sister-in-law of the deceased.

¶35

The attempt made by the petitioners to obtain an order of grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by order dated 1.9.2022 in Criminal Misc. No.1721/2022 and thereafter, the petitioners are before the Trial Court.

¶36

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that petitioners are no way connected with the alleged incident and prayed for grant of bail.

¶37

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader resisted the grounds urged in the objection statement and opposed the bail grounds.

¶38

Perused the material on record meticulously in view of the rival contentions of the parties.

¶39

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that petitioners have been shown as absconding accused in the charge sheet.

¶40

¶41

CRL.P No. 823 of 2023

¶42

However, the petitioners are mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased. There is no specific overt act alleged against the petitioners and the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are omnibus in nature.

¶43

Taking note of the fact that the present petitioners are not available to the investigating agency, an absconding charge sheet came to be filed and if the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigation Officer for further investigation and to appear before the court would meet the ends of justice.

¶44

Accordingly, without further discussion on the

¶45

merits of the matter, following order is passed:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The Criminal Petition is allowed subject to the following conditions:

¶48

(1) The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigation Officer on 17.04.2023 at 10.00 a.m.

¶49

(2) The Investigation Officer is at liberty to take the petitioners to their custody and complete the

¶50

¶51

CRL.P No. 823 of 2023

¶52

custodial investigation if any, on the same day before 6.00 p.m.

¶53

(3) Thereafter, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail, by taking a bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum.

¶54

(4) During investigation, the Investigation Officer find any incriminatory material is elicited, the Investigation Officer is at liberty to file additional or supplementary charge sheet against the petitioners as is contemplated under Section 173(8) of the Cr.PC,

¶55

(5) The Petitioners shall attend the Court regularly.

¶56

(6) The petitioners shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶57

(7) The Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Mysuru District without prior permission.

¶58

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail. Ordered accordingly.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84

¶61

Sannamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sannamma 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

Prem Bahadur Khadka Vs State of Karnataka

Mallikarjunachari Vs the State of Karnataka

Ananda Bardan Vs State by Cottonpet Police Station

Raju @ Kerala Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Kiran Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashokkumar Nayak @ Ganesha Vs State by Station House Officer Huliyar Police Station