Karnataka High Court
Hamsakumar S/O Aravillappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 March, 2022
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100801/2022
BETWEEN:
1. HAMSAKUMAR S/O ARAVILLAPPA
AGE. 32 YEARS
OCC. SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
R/O. KARECHEDU VILLAGE
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI
PIN CODE. 583117
2. ASHOK S/O ARIVILLAPPA
AGE. 40 YEARS
R/O. KARECHEDU VILLAGE
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI
PIN CODE. 583117
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI BASAVANA GOUDA T, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SIRUGUPPA POLICE STATION
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD-580011
...RESPONDENT.
(BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP.)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, SEEKING TO GRANT
ANTICIPATORY BAIL TO THE PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 (ACCUSED
NO.1 AND 4) IN THE EVENT OF THEIR ARREST IN CRIME
NO.21/2022, REGISTERED BY SIRUGUPPA POLICE STATION,
BALLARI DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498(A), 323, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to enlarge the petitioners, who are accused nos.1 and 4, on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.21/2022 of Siruguppa Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under sections 506, 34, 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, Ballari district.
2. It is the allegation of prosecution that on the basis of the complaint lodged by R.Suma, this case came to be registered. It is alleged that said Suma married with petitioner no.1 on 28.4.2019. It is alleged that both of them were software engineers and working at Hyderabad 3 and at that time these petitioners and their parents were abusing her stating she is not able to do any household work. They were also demanding her to bring ten lakh rupees and causing cruelty on her and ill-treating her. Thereafter due to pandemic COVID-2019, her in laws also came there and thereafter she has delivered a baby girl on 12.8.2020. Then again they abused her stating that she delivered a baby girl and insisted her to bring dowry. The husband also doubted her chastity and ill-treated her. There was a panchayat in this regard. In the panchayat they were advised to make a separate house and thereafter also she was ill-treated. Again her husband assaulted her and threatened to take away her life. Again on 16.1.2022 and have quarrelled with her and insisted to bring dowry. Hence, she lodged a complaint.
3. Heard Shri Basavana Gouda T, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, the learned HCGP for the respondent State. Perused the records.
4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the case is filed only to harass the petitioners. With respect to accused nos.2 and 3, the Sessions Court granted bail and in respect of accused nos.1 and 4 rejected the bail petition. Hence this petition is filed and argued to allow this petition.
5. On the other hand, the learned HCGP opposed the bail petition contending that it is an offence against woman and is a serious offence having impact on the society. Such offences are increasing now a days. Therefore they should be dealt seriously. Investigation is going on, if petitioners are granted bail, they may tamper the prosecution witnesses and they may abscond. Therefore the learned HCGP argued to dismiss the petition.
6. I have perused the petition averments and the material placed on record. It is evident that marriage of petitioner no.1 took place with the complainant Suma on 28.4.2019. Both of them are working as software engineers at Hyderabad. She has also delivered a child on 12.8.2020. It appears, there was some panchayat held 5 because of some quarrel between them. Admittedly the offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. On the other hand the petitioners are ready to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. The other two accused are already granted bail by the Sessions Court. Looking into the nature of the allegations against these petitioners it is evident that there is an attempt to take life of the complainant as stated. But no such injury is caused to her nor she was admitted to hospital.
7. It is settled principle of law that bail is a rule and rejection is an exception. While granting or rejecting the bail application, the Court will have to take into consideration, (1) the nature and seriousness of the offence;
(2) character of the accused;
(3) circumstances which are peculiar to accused;
(4) reasonable probabilities of presence of the accused not being secured at trial; (5) reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with; and 6 (6) larger interest of public or the state and similar other considerations, which arise when a court is asked to admit the accused to bail in a non-bailable offence.
8. Therefore, looking into the nature of the allegations and relationship between the parties, and keeping in mind the settled principles regarding bail, in my considered view the petitioners have made out sufficient ground to allow the petition.
9. The apprehension of the prosecution can be meted out by imposing reasonable conditions on the petitioners, as they have undertaken to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by the Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioners/accused nos.1 and 4 shall be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in respect of Crime No.21/2022 of Siruguppa Police Station, Ballari district, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, Ballari district, registered for 7 the offences punishable under sections 506, 34, 498A, 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and section 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, subject to the following conditions.
i) The petitioners/accused no.1 and 4 shall execute a self bond for Rs.1,00,000/-
each with a surety for the like sum, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) The petitioners shall not try to tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly and shall not threaten the complainant or her family members.
iii) The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer within a 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall surrender themselves and thereafter the investigating officer shall interrogate them and may recover the incriminating articles, if any, and then release them on bail forthwith on the conditions imposed in this order.
iv) The petitioners shall mark their attendance before the jurisdictional Police/SHO once in 15 days, i.e., on alternative Sunday between 10.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. for a period of three months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier and the petitioners shall co-operate with the investigating officer for investigation of this case.
v) The petitioners shall furnish proof of their residential correct address and shall inform the Court/Investigating Officer if there is any change in the address.
8
vi) The petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court.
vii) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal activities and shall not commit similar offences.
viii) The petitioners shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing during trial, if any, without fail as and when directed, unless exempted for the reasons assigned. In case if any of the condition is violated, the prosecution is at liberty to move application for cancellation of bail.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-