Disposed

K. Chandra Kala v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Sept 2014CRLP/10653/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a bail petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by senior-citizen in-laws (petitioners) in a dowry-related suicide case. Instead of statutory concession, the Court directed them to surrender to the Magistrate for regular bail consideration by the next day.

What did the court decide?

Liberty given to surrender before Magistrate for regular bail consideration by next day.

K. Chandra Kala Vs The State of Telangana — Telangana HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.10653 of 2014

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C by petitioners/A.2 and A.3 in Crime No.384 of 2014 of Ghatkesar Police Station, Cyberabad registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶4

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent-State and perused the material placed on record.

¶5

3. The petitioners are A.2 and A.3, no other than the in-laws of the deceased. A.1 is the husband of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased with A.1 was performed on 11.02.2007 and in their wedlock they blessed with two sons viz., Saatvik and Aditya. As per the report and the case diary, the material is against the accused persons and leave about the sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased, who were also arrayed, and it shows in the course of investigation, their names were deleted from the array as staying away and no role. A.1-husband of the deceased used to say as that he was doing business and used to illtreat the deceased to bring dowry from her parents, despite they already parted with land and money at the time of marriage and there were mediations held, even there was no change in the attitude

¶6

of the husband-A.1 and while so on 15.07.2014 A.1 telephoned to the parents of the deceased and threatened them to sell away the land, which was given at the time of marriage for money, and the parents of A.1 also, who are petitioners herein, supported the issue and the deceased was confined in one room and she was mentally and physically harassed by all the accused persons and having disgusted in her life, she committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance and breathed the her last while undergoing treatment at Spark Hospital, Uppal.

¶7

4. The contention of the petitioners is that they are innocent and there is no role on the alleged confinement or physical and mental harassment or support to the cause of the husband of the deceased against the deceased is not true.

¶8

5. The unnatural death of the deceased, the alleged committing of suicide within the four walls of the in-laws house ie., by A.1 including the petitoners-A.2 and A.3 is not disputed. The fact that in the post occurrence, there was mediators settlement under document, dated 11.08.2014, to the effect that to give House No.10-A-61 to the two kids of the deceased with absolute right of alienation by the minors after attaining majority and to deposit an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in each name and to return of the amount to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- and re-

¶9

register of the land Ac.2.00 gts. in the name of the deceased that was given towards pasupukunkuma and the amount as dowry no way dilute the propensity of the crime against the accused. Having regard to the above, though the 1^st petitioner is a lady and the 2^nd petitioner is a retired employee and both are senior citizens, the factual matrix does not deserve the concession of bail within the four corners of Section 431 Cr.P.C. but for as part of duty of the court to balance with personal liberty from the propensity of the crime rather than dismissal, this application is disposed of, by giving liberty to the petitoners/A.2 and A.3 to surrender before the learned Magistrate concerned to take into custody under Section 44 Cr.P.C. by virtue of this order, move before the learned Magistrate for regular bail and with notice to learned Assistant Public Prosecutor concerned and in such an event, the learned Judge/Magistrate shall consider for granting of bail in favour of the petitioners with necessary conditions preferably on the same day, if not atleast by the next day.

¶10

6. Accordingly, the criminal petition is disposed of.

¶11

___________________________ Dr. B.SIVA SANKARA RAO J,

¶12

19^th September 2014 mar

K. Chandra Kala v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Chandra Kala v. The State of Telangana

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

Garika Nancharamma Vs The State of Ap.

Gopal Agarwal, Vs The State

Sk.Aslam Muravath All Basha, Vs The State of A.P.

Rayapureddy Jayaramireddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Khader, Vs The STate of Telangana (through SHO Dharur)

Medhe Padma Rao Vs The State of Telangana