Allowed

Sri Mahadevamurthy H M v. State of Karnataka through

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2024CRL.P/2148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In-laws of a deceased woman sought anticipatory bail in an abetment of suicide and dowry cruelty case based on omnibus allegations. The court found they were not required for interrogation and granted anticipatory bail with conditions including bonds, appearance before the investigating officer, and no tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in the event of arrest; to appear before IO within 15 days; bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two sureties; standard conditions imposed.

Sri Mahadevamurthy H M Vs State of Karnataka through — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19236 CRL.P No. 2148 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2148 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. MAHADEVAMURTHY H M., S/O LATE MADAIAH H. AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.

¶8

SMT. MALLIGAMMA, W/O SRI. MAHADEVAMURTHY H.M., AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶9

BOTH ARE R/AT NO. HOSAKOTE VILLAGE, CHIKKAIAHNACHATRA, HOBLI, NANJANGUD TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 301.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. MANU B.P., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BILIGERE POLICE, MYSORE, REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE 01.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:19236 CRL.P No. 2148 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CR.NO.11/2024 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT, BILIGERE POLICE MYSORE DISTRICT, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 306 R/W 149 OF IPC, THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NANJANAGUD, MYSURU.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.11 of 2024, of Biligere Police Station, Mysore on the file of the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant viz., Smt.Mahadevamma.

¶22

Heard Sri.Manu B.P., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:19236 CRL.P No. 2148 of 2024

¶24

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶25

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶26

“Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶27

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶28

R E A S O N S

¶29

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.2

¶30

and 3 before this court seeking grant of anticipatory bail with an apprehension of being arrested. The mother of the deceased lodged the first information stating that the marriage of the deceased with accused No.1 was taken place about 12 years back. They have begotten two children. For about 7 years, they have led the married life and thereafter, there was a dispute between the husband and wife. It is stated that accused No.1 had filed a petition seeking divorce and on the date of incident, there

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19236 CRL.P No. 2148 of 2024

¶32

was a quarrel between the deceased and the petitioner and other accused have also abused her, as a result of which she consumed pesticide. After hearing the incident, the sister of the deceased went to the house of the accused and shifted her to the hospital, but by that time, she had already breathed her last. Even though serious allegations are made against accused No.1 for having ill treated the deceased and also instigated her to commit suicide, these petitioners are the in-laws and omnibus allegations have been made for having abused her on the date of the incident. Therefore, I am of the opinion that these petitions are not required for interrogation and they may be granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:19236 CRL.P No. 2148 of 2024

¶35

5. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶36

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petition is allowed.

¶39

The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.11 of 2024, of Biligere Police Station, Mysore.

¶40

The petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and on their appearance, the Investigating Officer shall enlarge them on bail subject to the following conditions:-

¶41

a. The petitioners shall furnish the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶42

b. The petitioners shall not commit similar offences;

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:19236 CRL.P No. 2148 of 2024

¶44

c. The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer or the court as and when required; and

¶45

d. The petitioners shall not threaten or tamper the prosecution witnesses.

¶46

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioners, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by them. On satisfaction of the said documents, he may proceed to accept the sureties within a reasonable time.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Mahadevamurthy H M v. State of Karnataka through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mahadevamurthy H M v. State of Karnataka through

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 Prakasha T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Shaik Rahil @ Shakil Baig Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Ashok Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Dileep Kumara Vs State of Karnataka

C Manjunatha Vs the State of Karnataka