Smt. Poornima Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HAROHALLI POLICE, KANAKAPURA TALUK REP BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶13

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.P.C (U/S 483 BNSS) PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITION ON BAIL IN CR.NO.14/2024 IN SC.NO.5059/2024, HAORHALLI P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARA SIT AT KANAKAPURA.

¶15

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:246 CRL.P No. 14034 of 2024

¶18

ORAL ORDER

¶19

The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.14/2024 of Harohalli Police Station, pending in SC.No.5059/2024 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara sitting at Kanakapura, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant

¶20

Sri. Somashekar G.C.

¶21

Heard Smt. Anuradha Urs.M.D., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

¶22

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶23

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:246 CRL.P No. 14034 of 2024

¶26

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

¶27

R E A S O N S

¶28

Petitioner being the sole accused is seeking grant of bail. She was apprehended on 22.07.2024 and since then she is in judicial custody. Initially, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.3760/2024 seeking grant of anticipatory bail. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 19.06.2024. Now the petitioner is in judicial custody. Investigation is completed and therefore, the petitioner is again before this Court seeking grant of regular bail.

¶29

The husband of the petitioner has lodged the first information alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is alleged that the petitioner was insisting for arranging a separate house with her husband and since her demands were not met, she administered insecticide to her child aged 2 ½ years and she also consumed a portion of it. As a result of which, her child died and she was admitted to the hospital. Subsequently, she recovered after getting treatment. The husband of the petitioner lodged the first

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:246 CRL.P No. 14034 of 2024

¶31

information and there are strong prima-facie materials against the petitioner. However, it is not the contention of the prosecution that she is required for further investigation or that she is having any criminal antecedents. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the interest of the prosecution.

¶32

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶33

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed.

¶36

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.14/2024 of Harohalli Police Station, pending in SC.No.5059/2024 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara sitting at Kanakapura, on obtaining 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 jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶37

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

¶38

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:246 CRL.P No. 14034 of 2024

¶40

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶41

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

¶42

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.

¶43

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶44

BH List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9

Smt. Poornima v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Poornima v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. H. Rathnamba Vs State by Magadi Road Police

Mr Baskar S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sathya Prathap Kumar Yadav @ Jogindar Yadav Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chikkanna Vs State of Karnataka by

Suhas N Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Priya G Fernandes Vs State of Karnataka