Karnataka High Court
Smt.Ratnamma W/O Jadiyappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 August, 2020
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19 t h DAY OF AUGUST 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.100890/2020
BETWEEN:
SMT.RATNAMMA W/O JADIYAPPA
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: FARMER,
R/O: WARD NO.1,
DEVASAMUDRA VI LLAGE,
KAMPLI TALUK, BA LLARI DISTRICT .
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. ANWA R BASHA , ADV OCA TE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH KAMPLI POLICE STATION)
REPRES ENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH CURT OF KA RNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI , HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYIN G TO ALLOW THI S
PETITION AND EN LARGE THE PETIT IONER / A CCUSED
NO.3 ON BAIL IN CR.NO.64/ 2020 REGISTERED IN
KAMPLI POLICE STATION, BA LLARI, FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 302, 498A , 34 OF IPC, PENDING TRAIL
OF THE CAS E
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the accused No.3 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking bail in Crime No.64/2020 by Kampli Police Station, Ballari, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Adde Gopal has filed a complaint alleging that the marriage of the complainant's 1st daughter-Mahalakshmi was performed with accused No.1-Karegoudra Pampapathi about 12 years ago and after marriage the accused persons were cordial with the said Mahalakshmi and thereafter all the accused persons subjected her to 3 cruelty by harassing her both physically and mentally and demanding additional dowry and transfer of land by her parents in her name. In spite of panchayat convened by elders and in spite of their advice, the accused continued their ill-treatment towards Mahalakshmi and they have not sent her to her parental house since 2 to 3 years and they used to subject her to cruelty by harassing her both physically and mentally. Between 8.00 pm on 02.06.2020 and 6.00 am on 03.06.2020, the accused persons have committed the murder of said Mahalashmi by assaulting with club and other objects on the vital parts and other parts of the body of the deceased at their home situated at Devasamudra. On the basis of the said complaint, police have registered a case in Crime No.64/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner-accused No.3 has been arrested on 06.07.2020. The petitioner approached the learned III 4 Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, in Crl.Misc.No.5155/2020 and her bail application came to be rejected by order dated 27.07.2020. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner-accused No.3 is the mother of accused No.1 and mother-in-law of the deceased. It is his further submission that the petitioner was residing in some other house and accused No.1 and the deceased were residing in the other house. It is his further submission that it is accused No.1 who assaulted the deceased and therefore she died. It is his further submission that the petitioner-accused No.3 is a woman aged 50 years and she is in judicial custody since 05.06.2020. It is his 5 further submission that after the complaint, accused No.1 committed suicide and UDR No.4/2020 is registered in that regard in Kampli Police Station. It is his further submission that the petitioner is ready to abide by the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. With these, he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that on looking to the statement of one of the eyewitnesses i.e., Smt. Tanuja, wife of accused No.4, the petitioner-accused No.3 was present in the house at the time of the incident and she held the hands of the deceased and accused No.1-Karegoudra Pampapathi assaulted with stick on Mahalakshmi and different parts of her body. It is her further submission that if the petitioner is granted bail, she will tamper the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that charge sheet has been filed and has made available a 6 copy of the charge sheet. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The petitioner is accused No.3 and she is the mother of accused No.1 and mother-in-law of deceased Mahalakshmi. Accused No.1, who is the son of the petitioner, after the incident, has committed suicide. Accused No.2 is the husband of the petitioner and accused No.4 is another son of the petitioner. One Tanuja, wife of accused No.4-Gadilingappa, is cited as an eyewitness in the charge sheet. Tanuja's statement has been recorded on 06.06.2020. The date of the incident is 02.06.2020. There is delay in recording her statement. The said Tanuja in her statement has stated that the present petitioner-accused No.3 held hands 7 and accused No.2 held legs of the deceased and accused No.1 assaulted with wide stick on different part of the body of Mahalakshmi. In the said statement, there is no allegation of any assault by the petitioner-accused No.3 on deceased Mahalakshmi. The petitioner is a woman aged 50 years.
8. It is well settled that matters to be considered in an application for bail are:
"(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;
(ii) nature and gravity of the charge;
(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;
(vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated;8
(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and
(viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. While a vague allegation that the accused may tamper with the evidence or witnesses, may not be a ground to refuse bail, if the accused is of such character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then bail will be refused."
9. In a decision reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 in the case of Dataram Singh v. State of Uttara Pradesh and Another, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in 9 jail or in a prison or in a correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our society."
10. In the present case, investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. No grounds have been made out by the prosecution to show that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 05.06.2020. The petitioner is the resident of the address shown in the cause title and the same is not disputed. The main objection of the prosecution is that in the event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to cause threat to the complainant and other prosecution witnesses. The said objection may be set right by imposing stringent conditions.
10
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.3 shall be released on bail in Crime No.64/2020 of Kampli Police Station, Ballari, subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh rupees only) with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. Due to COVID-19, the petitioner/accused No.3 is permitted to furnish surety within two months. If circumstances arise, the jurisdictional Court 11 is permitted to extend the period for furnishing surety.
ii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner/accused No.3 shall appear before the Court regularly and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE kmv