Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj Danappa Rachannavar, vs The State Of Karnataka, on 28 September, 2011
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28" DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20LE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AN AN D BY R. Al ah Db y- : CRIMINAL PL LLHON No.11162/ a0 | BETWEEN: Basavaraj Danappa Rachannay ar, Age: 30 years, Oct: Agriculture, R/o. Yalimunnoli, Fal: Hukkari, Dist:Belgauni, ve > . PE EEPIONER (By Shri, V_K.Naiks Advocite) « The. State af Karniat: aka, . Vhrough.Hukkeri Police » Station, * R/By.SPPLC iretiit Bench, "Dharwado. 0s - oo RESPONDENT (By Shri.Anand K. Navalgimath, Government Pleader) "This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code oo Or Criminal Procedure seeking that t ihe peut ioner be enlarged on = bail in' Hukkert P.S.Crime No.123/2011) for the offence a 3B, punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code This petition coming on for Orders this davy the. Colirt:, made the following: - on ORDER
Heard the learned counsel. for the setitioner.and the learned counsel for the res spondent,. |
2. The es said t) bie. the husband of one Manjula » Git ie | who 1S said tO hia raves "been married to the petitioner in econ G00. it i sated that the deceased was sarlier mart ied to swo-other men from whom she was separated and thereat wr. shé hiss mayried the present petitioner, who _ already had a Wife living. In the face of this admitted ._ circumstanée;-itis sought to be alleged that the petitioner and his family raembers Were constantly harassing the deceased "about her inability of attend to household chores and not b eI. ina pesition to work on the field in farming and it is further alleged t hat it is on account of the constant taunting on the part S Nand of the petitioner in this regard and his use of vulgar language at all times to abuse the deceased. that she had corr "Hi ited i suicide. The complainant, namely, the brother of thie dle ceitsed had made these allegations, whieh is. said to 'hnive been= supported by other witnesses, Se were, ne sighbours: of the petitioner and it is on that basis th; ais case | nas" "oes against the petitioner for offences © punishable ur under Secti ion 306 and Section 498A of the | via Penal Code (flereinatter referred to as the MPC? for brevity)" "Thou 2h several othe persons being the selatives oF the pe nitioner were also accused, all of them have been enlatved on bail except the petitioner, The court below has hel a tha "there was material to indicate a const: ant tor 'ture meted out to the deceased by the petitioner and ere fore has ke tha no case was made out for enlargement o ca ihé petitioner © ombail.
3. Given the circumstance that in the eve of law, the i ot 'So 1 certainly ...petilioner was not the husband of the deceased woulc 4?
> water down the allegations and the allegations, if any, can only be restricted to an offence punishable under Section 366 6f the IPC. Since this would have to be established atethe trial? the.
petitioner has made out a case for enlarge ment on bail Accordingly. the petition: ands | allowe "dd. The netitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject tein hom (1) that the petitioner shail execute & personal bond ina sum of Rs. 1 5000/5, with: a solvent surety for a likesulia, Set
2) that he | shalt not leave! the | urisdiction of the court "below _ sult the! Loan eof the court, (3) the at sat) ot make attempts to influence the witnesses, TI If any _ or to tamper with evidence, and (Ai thai the prosecution is at liberty to move this court «yy
-for.alteration of the conditions, if any.