Karnataka High Court
Suman Baburao Suryavanshi vs State Of Karnataka on 20 October, 2016
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
ON THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101114/2016
BETWEEN
SMT. SUMAN BABURAO SURYAVANSHI
AGE:55 YEARS OCCP. HOUSEWIFE
R/O HUGAR PLOT BENGERI HUBBALLI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D GUNDE, ADV.)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION-HUBBALLI-DHARWAD
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING DHARWAD
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION & DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT POLICE TO RELEASE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CRIME NO.46/2011 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF LEARNED JMFC-II HUBBALLI IN C.C. NO.576/2016
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498A, 304B, 302, 323, 504, 506, 201 READ WITH SECTION
34 OF IPC & SECTIONS 3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
The case of the prosecution is that Suman and Deepa were given in marriage to accused Nos.1 and 3 respectively on 02.05.2005. Substantial dowry was given at the time of marriage. Thereafter, both the accused as well as accused No.2 namely the mother-in-law started harassing the daughter-in-laws. Accused Nos.1 and 3 used to come fully drunk to the house and assault the complainant's daughters. They would abuse his daughters. It is the case of the prosecution that on 01.11.2011 with an intention to commit the murder of Smt.Suman, kerosene was poured on her and she was lit on fire. She was rushed to the KIMS Hospital. All these facts were disclosed by her sister Smt.Deepa. Thereafter, a case was lodged in Crime No.46/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 307, 323, 498A, 504 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The petitioner accused No.2 was absconding. A split up charge sheet was filed. Accused Nos.1 and 3 were acquitted in S.C. No.86/2012. After the acquittal, the petitioner sought for bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court which was rejected. Hence, the present petition.
:3:
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her and she is entitled to be released on bail. That she is aged about 55 years and hence on this ground also she is entitled for bail.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader disputes the same.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I'am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition.
5. The conduct of the petitioner is quite evident. She has been absconding ever since the date of the complaint. The prosecution was compelled to file a split up charge sheet excluding the petitioner herein. It is another matter that the accused Nos.1 and 3 were acquitted. The fact remains that the petitioner was absconding. Such a person is not entitled to the equitable relief of anticipatory bail in the hands of this Court. It is only because of the acquittal, that the petitioner now seeks for anticipatory bail. It is needless to state that there is absolutely no urgency for the Trial Court to proceed with the trial in this case. :4:
Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner was absconding for the last five years, on this ground itself I'am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any kind of bail. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merit is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE Rsh