Karnataka High Court
Smt. Chamundeswari W/O Veeranjanayalu vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101976 OF 2017
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101977 OF 2017
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101976 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHAMUNDESWARI W/O VEERANJANAYALU
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O:NANDINI BOOK STALL,
NEAR BUS STOP GUNTAGALL VILLAGE
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
2. SMT GEETA W/O NAGARAJ
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O:WALMIKI CIRCLE, GUTTI ROAD,
OLD GUNTAGALL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.HEMANTHKUMAR L HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
WOMEN POLICE STATION,BALLARI.
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANAND K. NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP)
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONERS ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN BALLARI, WOMEN
POLICE STATION CRIME NO.57 OF 2017 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504, 498A, 323, 324, 354(D),
506 READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND UNDER
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101977 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUNKLAMMA W/O LATE HONNURAPPA
AGE:60 YRS, OCC:RETIRED "D" GROUP EMPLOYEE
R/O:H.NO.220, WARD NO.4,
3RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR
HOSPETEM, DIST:BELLARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE)
A N D:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
WOMEN POLICE STATION,BALLARI
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANANDKUMAR K. NAVADAGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN BELLARI WOMEN P.S.
CRIME NO.57 OF 2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 504, 498A, 323, 324, 354(D), 506 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND UNDER SECTION 3
AND 4 OF DP ACT.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:3:
ORDER
Since these two petitions are in respect of the same crime number and common questions of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, they have been taken up together to dispose of them by this common order.
2. Criminal Petition No.101976 of 2017 is filed by the petitioners/accused No.3 and 4 and Criminal Petition No.101977 of 2017 is filed by petitioner/accused No.2. Both these petitions are filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking anticipatory bail, to direct the respondent Police to release the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest of the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 504, 498A, 323, 324, 354D, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent Police Station Crime No.57/2017.
3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as alleged in the complaint, that on 04.06.2017 in the afternoon at :4: 3.30 p.m. complainant went to house No.220 ward No.4, 3rd Cross Gandhi Nagar, Hospete. When the complainant came to the house of the husband, the petitioners have kicked the complainant, drove her out of the said house and they abused the complainant in filthy language. It is also contended in the compliant that the accused persons were insisting her to bring the dowry amount. On the basis of the said complaint case came to be registered against the petitioners herein and along with other accused persons.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in respect of both petitions and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the bail application of the petitioners herein.
:5:
6. It is no doubt true in the complaint, there are allegations even against the present petitioners/accused No.3 & 4 and 2 that they gave ill-treatment and harassment to the complainant, insisted her to bring the dowry amount and drove her out of her husband's house. But looking to the averments made in the bail petitions, the petitioners herein contended that they are totally unconnected with the alleged offences and accused Nos.3 and 4 are married, they are residing along with their husband. Therefore, there are false allegations made against them. They have also contended that they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Therefore, looking to the contentions of the petitioners and prima facie, it is contended by them that they are residing along with their husband and not in the house of accused No.1 and the serious allegations are against accused No.1.
7. The petitioner/accused No.2 contended that she is aged about 60 years, which fact is not seriously disputed by the prosecution. The petitioners are women. :6: Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners can be admitted to anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed. The respondent Police is hereby directed to release the petitioners/accused No.3, 4 and 2 respectively, on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.57/2017 registered for the above said offence, subject to the following conditions:
i. Each petitioner has to execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting authority.
ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the I.O. for interrogation, as any when called for.
iv. Petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the surety bond.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-