Karnataka High Court
Smt.Geeta Durgadas Naik vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF JUNE, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK G NIJAGANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETI TION NO.100463/2020
BETWEEN:
SMT.GEETA DURG ADAS NAIK,
AGE: 33 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O GUNDA, TQ : KUMTA,
DIST: KARWAR.
PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.V.YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE S TA TE OF KA RNATAKA ,
KUMTA POLICE S TATION,
R/BY S TATE PUBLIC PROSECU TOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.SEEMA SHIVA NAIK, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS F ILED UNDER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS
PETITION GRANTING ANTICIPA TORY BAIL IN RESPECT
OF THE PETITIONER AND ORDER TO RELEASE HER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER A RRES T IN KUM TA POLICE
STA TION CRIME NO.140/2017 F OR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A , 302 READ WITH
34 OF I.P.C. IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER WHO IS
ACCUSED NO.3 ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS
WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO BE
IMPOSED IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLO WING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 438 of
Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail and to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Kumta Police Station Crime No.140 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. (C.C.No.375 of 2020 pending before the JMFC, Kumta).
2. The facts briefly stated in the petition are that initially on 08.04.2017 an UDR case No.15 of 2017 was registered at Kumta Police Station in respect of unnatural death namely suicide committed by the Padmavati @ Yadi on the basis of the complaint filed by the sister of the deceased namely Yashodha Ramkrishna Naik. 3 Later on 15.05.2017 another sister of the deceased Smt Laki D/o. Timmappa Naik filed a Private Complaint No.115 of 2017 before the JMFC, Kumta. In pursuance to the order passed by the JMFC, Kumata in the said private complaint, police have registered the case on 17.05.2017 as Kumta PS Crime No.140 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed on 28.01.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with section 34 of IPC. The petitioner before this Court is accused No.3. The anticipatory bail petition filed by her before the Sessions Court was rejected.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.3 and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records. 4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court vehemently argued that, no case is made out against the petitioner/accused No.1. According to the prosecution records, petitioner/accused No.3 who is the sister-in-law of deceased, alone was at the home. At the time of registering the UDR case, the elder sister of the victim herself has given a statement, wherein there are no allegations about the dowry harassment or any other harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.3 or other family members of the petitioner compelling her to commit suicide. The police have submitted the charge sheet after the lapse of two years. The police officials are making attempts to arrest the petitioner in the event of arrest and detention she would be put to great hardship.
5
5. Per contr a, the learned HCGP submitted that even though the UDR case was registered at an initial stage, later on coming know about the real state of affairs one of the sister of the deceased has filed a private complaint disclosing the harassment caused by the petitioner/accused No.1 and his family members which ultimately instigated the victim to commit suicide. There is ample evidence to show that the petitioner/accused No.3 is responsible for suicide committed by the victim. In the event of granting bail to the petitioner likely to tamper or influence the prosecution witnesses. As such, the bail petition deserves to be rejected.
6. On going through the charge sheet records, the relevant facts noticed are that, the marriage of the victim with the petitioner/accused No.1 had taken place on 23.02.2017. Within a 6 span of two months the victim has committed the suicide. On 08.04.2017 when she committed the suicide, the police have registered the UDR case on the basis of the complaint filed by one of the elder sister Yashodha Ramkrishna Naik and there are no allegations whatsoever regarding the harassment caused for dowry or instigating the victim to commit suicide. Subsequently, on 15.05.2017 a private complaint was filed by another sister by name Smt. Laki D/o. Timmappa Naik alleging the harassment for dowry and instigation to commit suicide. Even according to the prosecution in Column No.17 of the charge sheet, the allegations are that the accused persons were causing harassment to the victim on the reason that the victim and her parents had suppressed the fact of health problem of the victim, therefore the petitioner/accused No.1 and his family members were causing harassment by 7 not providing food properly and also teasing her that she will not bear the children because of her health problems. Because of this harassment she committed suicide. But, nowhere there are specific allegations about the dowry harassment. Thus, it is evident that there are different versions and certain variations in statement of the sisters of the deceased/victim. Even two other independent witnesses i.e., CWs-4 and 17 have stated that the door was broken by accused No.3 to enter the premises where the victim had committed suicide. At this stage, it is needless to make elaborate discussion or give any specific finding as the same is not justifiable while considering the bail application.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694 in the case of 8 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre V/s State of Maharashtra and others has observed as under:
112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
i. The nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the
accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
ii. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cagnizable offence; iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
iv. The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences;
v. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or 9 humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
vi. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
10ix. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
x. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 11
114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the Judge concerned, after consideration of the entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the Judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the Court of Session or the High Court is always available.
12
8. In view of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, it is evident that the liberty of a person apprehending the arrest has to be protected whenever their apprehension justified.
9. The grounds stated in the petition and submission of the learned counsel goes to prove apprehension of the petitioner regarding her arrest and detention.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that there are valid grounds for granting bail subject to certain conditions. Hence, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., is allowed.13
Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.3 shall be released on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Kumta P.S. Crime No.140 of 2017 (CC.No.375 of 2020 pending on the file of JMFC, Kumta), on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh rupees only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/Court.
The petitioner shall appear before the concerned committal Court/Sessions Court within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and shall seek for regular bail.
The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court/Sessions Court without prior permission, till the disposal of the case. 14
If the accused/petitioner violates any of the conditions, the bail order stands vacated automatically.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK