Karnataka High Court
Smt.Laxmavva W/O Ningappa Yadalli vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26 T H DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETI TION NO.100594 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SMT LAXMAVVA D/O NINGAPPA YADALLI,
AGE : 25 YEARS, OCC : COOLIE,
R/O. BASAPUR, TQ : DIST : KOPPAL,
AT PRESENT AT JEERAL,
TQ : KANAKAGIRI, DIST : KOPPAL.
.....PETI TIONER
(BY SRI ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD
THROUGH MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS PETI TION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE
2
PETI TIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 ON REGULAR BAIL IN
CONNECTION WITH MUNIRABAD POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.175 OF 2019 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A AND 304B
READ WI TH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3
AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961
(C.C.NO.1659 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOPPAL.
THIS PETI TION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail in Munirabad Police Station Crime No.175 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (C.C.No.1659 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal).
2. The prosecution case is that on the complaint filed by the father of the victim the police 3 have registered the case. The allegations are that complainant's daughter had married accused No.1- Manjunath Ningappa Yadalli four years back. At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- dowry and 30 grams of gold and other articles worth Rs.90,000/- were given to the accused No.1/ husband. But the family members of husband of the victim were causing harassment to get more dowry. Being unable to bear the harassment done by the family members, the victim committed suicide. On registering the complaint, police have investigated the matter and charge sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner/ accused No.5 was arrested on 16.09.2019 since then he is in judicial custody. The petition filed before the Sessions Court is rejected. 4
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the State. Perused the prosecution records.
4. The complaint averments disclose that in the year 2015 the complainant's daughter married the accused No.1-Manjunath Ningappa Yadalli. After the marriage, family members of victim's husband frequently are causing harassment. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5. After the marriage, she is residing with her husband at Jiral village. As such, there was no occasion to meet the complainant's daughter or to cause harassment as alleged in the complaint. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by making frivolous allegations and she is in judicial custody along with infant child. Due to the detention she has been put to hardship.
5
5. Per Con tra, the learned HCGP submitted that the accused No.1 being the husband of victim and his family members have caused harassment to get some more dowry. On account of the said harassment the victim has committed suicide. In the event of granting bail the petitioner/accused No.5 is likely to cause threat to the complainant and his family members and other witnesses, thus, petition deserves to be rejected.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2005 Criminal Law Journal 883, (Supreme Court), has observed as under :
"The considerations which normally weigh with the Court in granting bail in non-bailable offences are - the nature and seriousness of offence ; the character of the evidence; circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial; reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered 6 with the larger interest of the public or the State and other similar factors which may be relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case."
7. As could be seen from the prosecution records the victim has committed suicide. The main allegations that on account of harassment done by the family members she was compelled to commit suicide. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion to give specific finding as the same is not permissible while considering the bail application. Admittedly, the petitioner/accused No.5 is judicial custody since 16.09.2019 along with infant child. No grounds have been made out for her future detention is necessary in custodial interrogation. The only objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail the petitioner/ accused No.5 is likely to cause or threat to the prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions. 7
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain conditions. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Munirabad Police Station Crime No.175 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (CC.No.1659 of 2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Koppal) subject to following conditions :
1. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to 8 the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court/ Committal Court.
2. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
3. The petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court/Session court on all the future hearing dates unless prevented by any genuine cause.
4. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/ Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE CKK