Allowed

Sri. Manjunath v. R. v State by Women Police

Karnataka HC23 Oct 2024CRL.P/6107/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a matrimonial case involving the death of his wife. The court rejected the allegation of murder based on a post-mortem report indicating suicide and noted absent ingredients for other offences, allowing bail subject to specific conditions including appearance and bond execution.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bond, appearance before police and trial court, and no tampering with witnesses.

Sri. Manjunath v. R. Vs State by Women Police — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:42557 CRL.P No. 6107 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6107 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MANJUNATH V. R. S/O RENUKA C.S. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RA/T VARASIDDI COMPOUND SHARIFF GALLI NEAR MADINA MASJID CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY WOMEN POLICE CHICKMAGALUR REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI SHASHANK S/O NARAYAN AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT THILAK NAGARA MYSURU CITY MYSORE - 570 021

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN THE EVENT OF HE BEING ARRESTED BY THE

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42557 CRL.P No. 6107 of 2024

¶19

RESPONDENT NO.1 CHIKKAMAGALURU WOMEN POLICE IN CR.NO.136/2023 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Accused No.1 in Crime No.136/2023 registered by Chikkamagalur Women Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A & 302 R/w 34 of IPC is before this Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, seeking anticipatory bail.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶25

FIR in Crime No.136/2023 was registered by

¶26

Chikkamagaluru Women Police Station, Chikkamagaluru, for the aforesaid offences against the petitioner herein and others, on the basis of first information dated 12.12.2023 submitted by Shashank, brother of deceased Ranjitha,

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42557 CRL.P No. 6107 of 2024

¶28

who was the wife of the petitioner. Apprehending arrest in the said case petitioner had filed Crl.Misc.No.912/2023 before the jurisdictional Sessions Court which was rejected on 30.12.2023. Therefore, he is before this Court.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself, for extraneous reasons. False allegations are made against the petitioner and his family members. He submits that petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and he is ready to cooperate with the police for the purpose of investigation. Though the first informant and his family members knew that deceased had committed suicide, deliberately they have made false allegation that the petitioner and his family members have murdered Ranjitha. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶30

Per contra , learned HCGP and learned counsel

¶31

appearing for respondent No.2/de facto complainant have opposed the petition. They submits that petitioner has been absconding for the last more than 10 months and

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42557 CRL.P No. 6107 of 2024

¶33

therefore, there is no progress in the investigation. It is only because of the harassment in the matrimonial house, deceased has committed suicide. They submit that the petitioner's conduct disentitles him from seeking the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

¶34

Perusal of the material available on record

¶35

would go to show that marriage of the petitioner with Ranjitha was solemnized on 22.11.2022 and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife in the house of the petitioner. It appears that on 12.12.2023 first informant received information that his sister Ranjitha had committed suicide in her matrimonial house. Immediately, thereafter he had gone to the matrimonial house of Ranjitha and seen her dead body. In the first information, it is stated that Ranjitha was harassed in her matrimonial house by the petitioner and his parents. First informant suspected that the petitioner and his family members have committed the murder of Ranjitha and

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42557 CRL.P No. 6107 of 2024

¶37

thereafter hanged her body. It is in this background he had approached the police and submitted his first information.

¶38

During the course of investigation of the case, the police have obtained the post mortem report of deceased Ranjitha. In the post mortem report it is stated that death of deceased Ranjitha was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. Therefore, it is very clear that offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC does not get attracted against the petitioner. In the first information, there is no such allegation that there was demand for dowry by the accused persons and in furtherance of the said demand, they had ill-treated deceased in her matrimonial house, and therefore, even the offence punishable under section 304B does not prima facie get attracted in the present case at this stage. Since the post mortem report reflects that deceased had committed suicide, at the most the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC can be invoked against the petitioner. However,

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:42557 CRL.P No. 6107 of 2024

¶40

perusal of the first informant would go to show that omnibus allegations are made against the petitioner and his family members about ill-treating the deceased in her matrimonial house and no specific instant of ill-treatment is mentioned. For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, the alleged act committed by the accused persons immediately prior to the act of suicide by deceased should have either aided, abetted or instigated the deceased to take the drastic step of committing suicide. There is no such allegation found in the FIR and therefore necessary ingredients to invoke Section 306 of IPC is prima facie absent in the first information. Undisputedly, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner’s prayer for anticipatory bail needs to be answered affirmatively, subject to conditions.

¶41

8. Accordingly, the following:

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:42557 CRL.P No. 6107 of 2024

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed .

¶45

The Respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioner in the event of his arrest in Crime No.136/2023 registered by Chikkamagaluru Women Police Station, Chikkamagaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 498A & 302 r/w 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:

¶46

a. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer in the present case on 04.11.2024 at 10.30 a.m, and if necessary, Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody for the purpose of interrogation on the said date but it is made clear that the Investigating Officer shall release the petitioner on the very same date on or before 6.00 p.m,

¶47

b. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC:42557 CRL.P No. 6107 of 2024

¶50

c. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

¶51

d. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and he shall co-operate with the Police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

¶52

e. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future.

¶53

SD/-

¶54

(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶55

ASN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Sri. Manjunath v. R. v State by Women Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunath v. R. v State by Women 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

Abubakkar Siddiki Vs State of Karnataka

Thaseen Sultana Vs M/S Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited

Allabakash @ Chindi Bakash Vs State of Karnataka by

H P Kusha @ Hulimane Kiran Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ritiksh @ Santhosh Vs State of Karnataka

Parashurama.N Vs State of Karnataka