Prakash Irappa Tigadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2010

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Prakash Irappa Tigadi vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 May, 2010

Bench: Jawad Rahim

 _ Through Kittur P.S*; 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 28'!" DAY OF' MAY, «i?:(:)1Q.::'   

BEFORE.  ..

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIC}:E3« J;ég'wAD'IIm'£Ii'1yI4.IV  

CRIMINAL PET1T':o_N..No.748V1,'V2o'i.O   

BETWEEN:

Prakash Irappa Tigadi, V
Age about 30 ycam,   . 
Occ: Agriculturfc.*«._  Q.

R/0 Ugarkhod, I I
Tq:Bai1h0r1gal, _ .

Dist: Belgaum,  

(By Sn. zsurgsii14>.»V1--igiaed-a.;ga:1_dij Advocate)
AND: A I
The Statir of Kgguﬁataka, 

Reptd; by--f'SI'I",_

 Cifcuit B.enc;*;.,._ 
'=::)h;._;wad_.  ._ -

(By  v.3} iéufkarni, HCGP)

PETITIONER

RESPONDENT

T}ii.s_:7;:r'i1'ni11aI petition is filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. praying

  nan}-31&rge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.53/10 for the
 . "--[él1e'gedA.~'offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/W
 '-««SeC'{:;'<3n 14?") OIIPC of Kittur PS.



This petition coming on for orders this day, th_e__Court

made the foliowingz
ORDER

The petitioner is accused no.1, facing _§;'h--argeV':fo'r offences punishable under sections....4_98(A_';,Hi3G:€{V»reatigw-ithu' section 149 of IPC, in Crime No.5£3/ regist_e1sei:V'onV°the basis of report subrnitted"iV_b§{.. one it"{e11appa,._'~»Rncirappa..L' Katnbarganavi.

2. The State bail.

3. The proseeuition' petitioner Prakash Irappa Tigarii to Hindu rites dernan(:'.:ir1g reCeiving"~«etoWry. The complainant had no choice biituto meet f1iis'--de'1n:a;11(is hoping the marriage would be a success. Howeverv, the petitioner along with his parents and ."other---- rel-ativesg harassed Ratnavva, making her life miserable, rieVrnand,ii.'1g_&iatiditional dowry. Since it was not given, they tortured such an extent that on 12.2.2010, unable to 'bear thfsvvertieity, she consumed poison and put an end to her "«.§%m.s¢iab1e life. On that report, petitioner was arraigned as ﬁiieeused No.1 while his parents and relatives as accused Nos.2 s 5, L) to 5. The accused Nos.2 to 5 applied to the Court of Sessions, who admitted them to bail, but denied the same relief_lto_V the petitioner.

4. The learned Counsel for the «rAigh:t1y<.» it points out from the complaint thatfthe:.allegatiori's=.are"general in nature indicting all the accused to._be responsible for "the", unfortunate death of Ratnaxvwai'..fl'l:ere is'r1o"'1iidi's}'i§dual overt act assigned to them to ijiace them 'on 'different pedestal. in the circumstances, though 'in_n<iicler'1it as a result of unsuccessful rneitr.iri_1--onjyi'._bt;t..ih '3'::_i.V;,[:'3.ti':'§VVf of bail, benefit has been giVen"to, TcC.--aclci:;.§.sed*.wbo facewthe same charge. Therefore, petitioner is also enltitledv same relief.

5. x}'..ccordi1n_g1Ay_, petition is admitted to bail subject to foliéiwing condit'ior1__s_;__v _¢ ".e'I'hevpetitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of 'lll."_P._s.2'.5l,O0O/-- with one surety for the like sum to satisfaction of the trial Court or the Court of Sessions, as the case may be.

it go a Sub* He shall not tamper the prosecution mat_r:3_1'iai or prevail upon Witnesses by any means.

The petitioner shall not leave .u"Lh€ jurisdiction of the C0ur{__w.i.thoL:t _;{3ri6f=;5¢rriii$'s.i<>n, '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court