Mrs Bhagyamma vs The State Karnataka on 10 February, 2014

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mrs Bhagyamma vs The State Karnataka on 10 February, 2014

Bench: R.B Budihal.

                            1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                   BANGALORE

   DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.27/2014

BETWEEN:

Mrs. Bhagyamma,
W/o. Late Chandregowda,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Hoskote Village,
Melkote Hobli,
Pandavapura Taluk,
Mandya District-571 434                 .. PETITIONER

(By Sri. Mahesh.S, Adv.)

AND:

The State of Karnataka,
By Pandavapura Police Station,
Mandya District-571 434.                .. RESPONDENT

(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)


      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
the event of her arrest in Cr. No.393/2013 (FIR
No.528/2013) of Pandavapura P.S., Mandya, for the
offence P/U/S 302, 304(B) R/W 34 of IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
                            2


      This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:


                        ORDER

This petition is filed by petitioner-accused No.4 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in respondent-police station Crime No.393/2013.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4 and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that looking to the averments in the complaint, the allegations regarding the demand for dowry is only against accused Nos.1 to 3 and not against accused No.4. The only allegation as 3 against the present petitioner is that accused No.1 was having illicit connection with this petitioner. Hence, submitted that there is no material placed by the prosecution to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offences. Accordingly, sought to allow the petition.

4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that the matter is still under investigation. The investigating officer has to record the statement of some more witnesses. As per the statement of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer, there is a clear allegation that even this petitioner also joined hands with accused Nos.1 to 3 and gave ill-treatment to the deceased. Hence, at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with anticipatory bail.

5. Perused the averments made in the bail petition and also other materials placed on record. 4

5. As it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the investigation is still in progress and the Investigation Officer has to record the statement of some more witnesses and also that the alleged offences are punishable under Sections 302 and 304(b) r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. In this connection, I am referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1987 SC 737 in the case of Samunder Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and others.

Hence, petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE bkp

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court