Smt. Modinbi W/O Mehaboob Sab Dharwad vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2009

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Modinbi W/O Mehaboob Sab Dharwad vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2009

Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh

IN THE HIGH comm' or KARNATAKA
CIRCUXT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY or SEPTEMBER zqbso
Before   
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADIH  it
Criminal Petition No.7:'?49'/'M69 .;   T  '
Between:   A'  

Smt.i\/Iodinbi,
W/o Mehaboob Sab Dharwad,
Major. Occ: Household work,

R/o. Gamanagatti,   E   , 
Tait Hubii, Dist: Dharwad.  '  *      A  _ PETITIONER

(By Sri.Srinand A. pach1;a'pgre,:Adv_--;1L':: V

And:

State of Kamatakéige it _ _

By women Pg:-lice Sta'tio_n,' . 

Hulgwﬁ. .   "  _ A.

Now re'p.&by----I~IC.G.P.''i~ .. H """ ii  RESPONDENT

. (By   HCGP)

This ".'f:1'i}7§ii1']:i'1£3t1:"" Petition is fiied under $3.439 Cr.PC, praying to

__Vi*e1_e'a'se the petitioner on bail in S.C.No.46/2008 registered for the

f5fféI:1'€éS __m1nis1":ab1e U:/s. 498A, 302 :"/w section 34 of IPC by respondent

 'poli4ce~.fS'tation, and etc.

 petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the

  A  foiilowing: W;



ORDER

The petitioner has sought for grant of bail in connectiori',,with Crime No.1/2008 of Mahifa Police Station, North, punishable under sections 498(A), 307 r/w _sect_i_or1 34Wo"f'il?fCii.anid.gundei'_ sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Heard.

3. The case of the prose~c_u3:iorii_ of deceased with the son of petitioner (accused._no.2),A.tool<;:»place.__d'urin:gi:;t'h.e year 2007. For two months the dece4asjedii:.1'mlas by her husband and other family members,' to ill--treat the deceased demanding her at 2.30 p.m. all the accused picked up a quarrel! with assaulted her and after pouring kerosene on her., thegriset aiblaizie. The deceased succumbed to burn injur-'ies"in&t1*lve iho.s'pita.l on Ei>.fl.2i008. Thereafter, a case to be registered in "for.,o_'ffences punishable under sections 498A, 302 if,/VW.v;'E'aec.34iof_'ll3C 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. * According to the learned Counsel for petitioner, offence u/s

-- vi?as"registered at the time of filing of FIR on 4.1.2008 Whereas ivictinrsuccumbed to injuries on 6.1.2008. He further submits that W. DJ all the accused persons except this accused no.2 have been granted bail. Therefore, on parity he seeks bail in respect of this petitioner also.

5. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted, that there is prima case against this petitioner for her involvement in the foffe_'nc"e,_ and therefore, she is not entitled for grant of bail.

6. It is seen that within two yearsizof the':ria«rriage_.:of.Vvictirn vzith.___ the son of petitioner the alleged incident hast--ai<le.n place. .l:Thi'e clorriplaint lodged by the victim discloses that helr"t'i}:fusband" .othe~r in--laws are responsible for setting her on fire~.~.__ papers reveal about the direct involvement of petitioner (a§ic:ci2sed._:iiri.io.;2i)'_1hereir1.. Therefore, having regard to theii'fa'c.ts,V and--cireumstances of the case, it is not a fit case for grant of 'bail at petitioner may seek for early trial before the trial ..court.'' Vi'.ACC§OITd,iI1gvly«,."Chd*Cl'i1'1'1iI1al petition is disposed of. 'lax Sd/-it EUDGE Bulb'/3 V' " '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court