Smt Rantavva Hanamantagouda Patil Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 (2) OF CR.P.C. (483 (3) OF BNSS), SEEKING TO CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (MAHADEVAPPA MARIGOUDA PATIL) IN CRL.MISC CASE NO.1179/2024 DATED 10.10.2024 BY THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SECTIONS 302, 304(B), 34 AND SECTIONS 3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 IN CRIME NO.0130/2024 SAUNDATTI P.S. AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO SURRENDER BEFORE THE COURT.

¶23

2 -

¶24

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4659 CRL.P No. 103506 of 2024

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

¶28

Heard Sri Akshay Matawale representing Sri Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vittal S. Teli, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶29

Petition under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. with

¶30

the following prayer :

¶31

3. To cancel the bail granted to the respondent No..2 (Mahadevappa Marigouda Patil) in Crl.Misc Case No.1179/2024 dated 10.10.2024 by the VI Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi for the offences Punishable U/Sections 302, 304(B), 34 and sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 in Crime No.0130/2024 Saundatti P.S. and direct the respondent No.2 to surrender before the court.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4659 CRL.P No. 103506 of 2024

¶33

Facts in the nutshell which are utmost

¶34

necessary for disposal of the present person are as under:

¶35

4.1 Second respondent was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC along with offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶36

Bail request of the respondent No.2 was allowed by a considered order dated 10.10.2024.

¶37

4.2 According to the de-facto complainant, there is violation of the bail conditions. Pertinent to note that the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum are in the nature of filing an appeal against the order of the bail. What exactly is the violation of the bail condition is not even spelt out in the entire petition.

¶38

4.3 Counsel for the petitioner however during the course of the argument contended that the respondent No.2 is tampering with the prosecution evidence. No iota of material is placed on record to substantiate said allegation.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4659 CRL.P No. 103506 of 2024

¶40

Counsel for second respondent and learned

¶41

High Court Government Pleader submit that there is no violation of bail conditions and if any violation is there, it is always open for the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the Trial Judge.

¶42

Taking note of the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the learned Trial Judge has passed an order of grant of bail using the special discretionary powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C., this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly sufficient to cancel the bail order.

¶43

7. Accordingly, following order is passed.

¶44

ORDER

¶45

Petition is rejected.

¶46

However, it is noticed that learned Trial Judge while granting bail order, has not even imposed the condition that the second respondent shall not tamper the

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4659 CRL.P No. 103506 of 2024

¶48