Karnataka High Court
Sharabanna S/O Sidramappa Angadi vs State on 15 May, 2019
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K. Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MAY 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200519/2019
Between:
Sharabanna
S/o Sidramappa Angadi
Age: 30 years, Occ: Driver
R/o Rastapur Village
Tq. Shahapur
Presently r/o Mamata Colony
Shahapur City
Dist. Yadgiri-585201
... Petitioner
(By Sri Basavaling Nasi, Advocate)
And:
State through Shahapur P.S.
Represented through Addl. SPP
High Court of Karnataka
At Kalaburagi Bench-585102
... Respondent
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.485/2018 of Shahapur Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 306 r/w Section 34
2
of IPC, pending before Civil Judge and JMFC (Junior
Division) Court at Shahapur.
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
This bail petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking to grant regular bail to the petitioner/accused No.4 in Crime No.485/2018 of Shahapur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Initially, the FIR was recorded for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, when the chargesheet is filed, the offence under Section 302 of IPC was dropped by invoking Sections 323 and 306 of IPC against the accused.
2. Factual matrix of the case are as under: 3
It is evident from the complaint that one Adappa lodged a complaint alleging that his sister Amruta @ Amaramma was given in marriage to petitioner/accused No.4 in the year 2009 as per the customs prevailing in their society. Subsequent to marriage, she was blessed with a male baby who is aged about 18 months at the time of incident. It is alleged that accused used to give physical and mental harassment to the deceased- Amruta @ Amaramma in order to bring dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. Parents of the deceased arranged Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was paid to the accused. Despite of which, the accused was giving physical and mental harassment to the deceased in order to bring remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental house. Being unable to bear with the harassment meted out to her, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 22.12.2018 in the house of her husband. On filing of the complaint before the respondent-Police, a case came to be registered for the 4 aforesaid offences and proceeded for investigation of the case.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent and perused the records of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments has contended that, initially, the FIR was recorded for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, but after completion of investigation, when the Investigating Officer has laid chargesheet, the offence under Section 302 of IPC has been dropped by invoking Section 306 of IPC. He has produced copy of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.200307/2019 dated 18.03.2019 wherein the accused-Sharanu @ Sharan Basappa has been granted on bail by this Court on certain conditions stipulated therein. The petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the accused who 5 has already been released on bail, therefore, principles of parity be extended to this accused also. The petitioner is in judicial custody since from the date of his arrest. He is required to look after his son who is aged about 18 months. It is also contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court while granting him bail. On these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for enlarging the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that, as per the complaint averments, the petitioner herein was giving physical and mental harassment to the deceased-Amruta @ Amaramma in order to bring dowry, due to which, the deceased has committed suicide by hanging. The petitioner has been involved in heinous offence. If the petitioner is released on bail, certainly there will be an adverse impact on the society. 6 On these grounds, the learned High Court Government Pleader is seeking for dismissal of the bail petition.
6. Having regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State are concerned, it is relevant to state that one Adappa lodged a complaint alleging that his sister Amruta @ Amaramma was given in marriage to petitioner/accused No.4 in the year 2009 as per the customs prevailing in their society. Subsequent to marriage, she was blessed with a male baby who is aged about 18 months at the time of incident. It is alleged that accused used to give physical and mental harassment to the deceased- Amruta @ Amaramma in order to bring dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. Parents of the deceased arranged Rs.1,00,000/- and the same was paid to the accused. Despite of which, the accused was giving physical and mental harassment to the deceased 7 in order to bring remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her parental house. Being unable to bear with the harassment meted out to her, the deceased committed suicide by hanging on 22.12.2018 in the house of her husband. On filing of the complaint, a case was registered and the Investigating Officer proceeded for investigation of the case. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid chargesheet against the accused. However, the materials secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation are enough materials to lay the chargesheet but the said materials are not enough to decline the relief of bail sought for by the petitioner. Therefore, it is said that, at this stage, it does not require any detail discussion while considering the bail petition filed by the accused. There are substances in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking relief of bail. However, the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government 8 Pleader that if the petitioner is released on bail, he would come in the way of prosecution case and would destroy the evidence, could be curtailed by imposing suitable conditions to safeguard the interest of the prosecution. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, as well as under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner/accused No.4 is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Bail petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed subject to the following conditions.
1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court where the case in Crime No.485/2018 of Shahapur Police Station is pending;9
2. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court of law on all the dates of hearing without fail.
3. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Yadgir District without prior permission from the competent Court of law.
4. The petitioner shall mark his attendance once in a month in the first week of Sunday in between 10 a.m., and 5 p.m., before the concerned SHO for a period of six months.
5. The petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
If the petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order shall automatically stand ceased.
SD/-
JUDGE NB*