Karnataka High Court
Nanjegowda vs The State Ofkarnataka on 26 September, 2019
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6239/2019
BETWEEN
1. NANJEGOWDA
S/O LATE EREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
2. NANJAMMA
W/O NANJEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
MAYAGONDANAHALLI,
HALEBEEDU HOBLI,
BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-577101 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY HALEBEEDU POLICE,
HASSAN DISTRICT,
REP. BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-01 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP)
2
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.111/2019 OF HALEBEEDU POLICE STATION, HASSAN
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.302,304-B,498-A R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The petitioners are arraigned as accused 2 and 3, who are respectively father and mother of accused No.1 in Crime No.111/2019 of Halebeedu Police Station, Hassan District, for the offence punishable under Sections 304B, 302, 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The brief facts of the case are that about 4 years prior to the incident deceased - Pankaja, the daughter of complainant - Maheshwarappa was given in marriage to accused No.1 - Nagaraja, son of the 3 petitioners; at the time of marriage, they have given 40 gms., of gold articles to the bride and bridge groom with love and affection; the husband and wife were living together happily and they were also blessed with a female child. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons started ill-treating and harassing the accused in connection with the property which is available to her share.
4. In this context, it is alleged that on 1.8.2019 in the early hours, at about 3.00 a.m., the accused persons have assaulted the deceased demanding dowry of Rs.50,000/- as well as to bring her share in the property and killed her.
5. On the above said allegations, the police are investigating the matter. The post mortem report is silent so far as the cause of death is concerned as the final report is kept pending till the availability of FSL report. But, the post mortem report shows that there were small abrasions and contusions on the body of deceased and whether those abrasions and contusions are fresh or old is 4 not stated. However, they are stated to be ante mortem in nature.
6. During the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statement of some of the witnesses and accepting the voluntary statement of accused No.1, they have arrived at a conclusion that accused 1 to 3 have assaulted the deceased demanding dowry, which might have caused small injuries to her. Thereafter, at about 2.00 a.m., accused No.1 alone took the deceased to the backyard of their house and has committed the murder of the deceased by pressing her neck towards an object which was there in the backyard of their house. Thereafter, snatched the Mangalya chain of the deceased and kept the same near a waste pit so as to make believe that some other person has committed the murder of the deceased.
7. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances, though there are some allegations against the petitioners that they were demanding some amount 5 and the share available to the deceased in the property, whether the said act of accused 2 and 3, who are the parents of accused No.1 is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 498A has to be looked into during the course of full dressed trial as the main allegations are against accused No.1, who has actually committed the said act as stated by him.
8. In the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners who are aged more than 60 years appears to have not actually participated in committing the offence and as they are already in judicial custody and no more required for any further investigation, in my opinion, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioners shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No Crime No.111/2019 of Halebeedu Police Station, Hassan District, registered against them for the offence 6 punishable under Sections 304B, 302, 498A r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioners shall execute their respective personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with one surety for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioners shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioners shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against them is disposed of.
(v) The petitioners shall mark their attendance once in a week i.e., on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. before the Investigating Officer for a period of two months 7 or till the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-