Karnataka High Court
Smt Komala M vs State Of Karnataka on 13 January, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.185 OF 2021
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.208 OF 2021
IN CRL.P.NO.185/2021:
BETWEEN:
SMT. KOMALA M.,
W/O. LOKESH REDDY A.G.,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.111, 2ND CROSS,
3RD MAIN, L.B.SHASTRY NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560068. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. MURTHY B. NAIK AND SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATES]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. DIVAKAR M. MADDUR, HCGP]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.301/2020 OF HAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 420, 494,
495, 327, 324, 114, 506, 307 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE D.P. ACT.
***
2
IN CRL.P.NO.208/2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI. BHARATH L.,
S/O. LOKESH REDDY A.G.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.111, 2ND CROSS,
3RD MAIN, L.B.SHASTRY NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560068. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. MURTHY B. NAIK AND SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATES]
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. DIVAKAR M. MADDUR, HCGP]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.301/2020 OF HAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 420, 494,
495, 327, 324, 114, 506 AND 307 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.
***
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Crl.P. No.185/2021 is filed by accused No.2 and Crl.P. No.208/2021 is filed by accused No.1. Both these petitions are filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the 3 petitioners on regular bail in Crime No.301/2020 registered at HAL Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 494, 495, 327, 324, 114, 506, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned HCGP for respondent/State.
3. The first informant is one Shravani, wife of accused No.1. In her complaint, she has stated that she got married to accused No.1 on 29.10.2020 and on that day since he had consumed alcohol, she did not allow him to touch her. Even on 30.10.2020 as he was under the influence of alcohol, she did not allow him to touch her. Thereafter, her husband and her mother-in-law tried to perform black-magic by spraying ash on her face and also keeping lemon pieces on her head and also asking her to eat the rice mixed with ash. It is alleged that if she resisted, they used to beat her etc. Further, on 19.11.2020, at around 7.00 a.m., both of them were discussing that the complainant should be finished and at about 8.30 a.m., they tried to perform black-magic once 4 again and they pulled her hair and attempted to throttle and also assaulted her using an iron rod etc.
4. The learned counsel appearing for accused/petitioners has contended that the entire allegations are false. The complaint is lodged after an inordinate delay. He submits that the complainant has consulted a private doctor and took treatment as an out-patient and she has not sustained any injuries. He further contends that even according to the prosecution, there are no medical records to corroborate the version of the complainant. He submits that accused No.3 is already granted anticipatory bail. He further submits that petitioner/accused No.1 was arrested on 01.12.2020 and petitioner/accused No.2 was arrested on 18.12.2020 and they are languishing in judicial custody since then. He submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Accordingly, seeks to allow the petition.
Per contra, the learned HCGP has vehemently opposed grant of bail to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 5 contending that the investigation is still in progress and sought to reject the petition.
5. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2.
Accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant and accused No.2 is her mother-in-law. The wound certificate made available does not indicate any severe injuries sustained by the complainant. On the other hand, some bruise marks over the face and neck region and scratch mark on the neck over the left side are noticed. Whether the petitioners have committed any offence as alleged by the complainant is a matter which has to be established by the prosecution during trial. The petitioners are already arrested and interrogated and are not required for further investigation. Section 307 of IPC has been invoked in the FIR. However, at this stage, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the petitioners to commit the murder of complainant. As such, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petitioners can be enlarged on bail by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, the following:
6
ORDER Both the petitions are allowed.
The petitioners shall be released on bail in Crime No.301/2020 registered at the H.A.L. Police Station, Bengaluru City, for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 420, 494, 495, 327, 324, 114, 506, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, now pending on the file of the XXIX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, subject to following conditions:
(1) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- [Rupees One Lakh] each with two likesum solvent sureties to the satisfaction of jurisdictional Court.
(2) The petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly and they shall not put any threat or inducement to the complainant/ victim.7
(3) The petitioners shall furnish proof of their correct residential address and shall inform the Court, if there is change in the address.
(4) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trail Court without prior permission of the jurisdictional Court.
(5) The petitioners shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE Ksm*