Karnataka High Court
Smt Geeta W/O Raju Bhajantri vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2022
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25 T H DAY OF AUGUST 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 102262 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETA W/ O. RAJU BHAJANTRI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MARADIMATH, T Q. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI .
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. ANAN D KUMAR, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
GOKAK RURAL POLICE STATION ,
REPT. BY STATE A DDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD BEN CH.
... RES PONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITI ON AND
DIRECT THE RESPOND ENT HEREIN TO RELEA SE THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 ON BAI L IN THE EVENT OF ARREST
IN RESPECT OF CRIME NO.43/ 2022 REGISTERED WIT H GOKAK
RURAL POLI CE ST ATION UNDER SECTIONS 448, 450, 302, 504
READ WITH S ECTI ON 34 OF IPC.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE F OLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Section 438 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.43/2022 of Gokak Rural Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 450, 302 and 504 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 Laxmi @ Sakrevva Maning Gayakavad has filed the complaint stating that she and accused persons are neighbours at Maradimath village at Gokak Taluk. The complainant's son Hanumant has borrowed an amount of Rs.700/- from accused No.1-Raju Bhajantri and the complainant went to return the same on 08.03.2022 in the evening. At that time, accused No.1 refused to receive the amount with a 3 say let her son re-pay it, and then the complainant returned home and scolding her son as to why was he doing like this and to work properly. On the very night at about 08.00 p.m. accused persons trespassed into the house of complainant, accused No.4 dragged saree of the complainant and husband of the complainant Maning intervened and asked the accused No.4 as to why she is dragging her saree. Being enraged, accused No.1-Raju uttered that it is too much and he will not leave him and lifted and thrown him on the tiles floor of the house and sat on his chest and assaulted with hands. When they screamed for help, accused persons fled away and thereafter the complainant's husband declared dead. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.43/2022 by Gokak Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 450, 302 and 504 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Police arrested accused No.1-Raju and he is in judicial custody. The Police after the investigation have filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against accused Nos.1 to 4. This petitioner is arrayed as 4 accused No.4 in the FIR, apprehending her arrest has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.8116/2022 seeking anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Gokak by order dated 30.07.2022. Therefore, the petitioner/accused No.4 is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the accusation against this petitioner/accused No.4 is that she entered the house of the complainant along with accused Nos.1 to 3 and at that time this petitioner/accused No.4 pulled the saree of the complainant. Except the said overt act alleged, there are no other overt acts alleged against this petitioner with regard to the murder of the deceased Maning. As the charge sheet is filed the petitioner is not required for any 5 custodial interrogation. The petitioner is a women, aged 29 years. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that there is a specific allegation against this petitioner in the complaint and the charge sheet and statements of eye witnesses. It is his further submission that this petitioner/accused No.4 entered the house of the deceased along with accused Nos.1 to 3 and started quarreling with the complainant and dragged her saree. The husband of the petitioner/accused No.4, assaulted the deceased-Maning and lifted and thrown him on the parshi tiles floor and caused head injury and sat on his chest and assaulted him with hands and caused his death. It is his further submission that on looking to the entire charge sheet material there is prima facie case against the petitioner/accused No.4 for the offense alleged against her, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.
6
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader, this Court has gone through the charge sheet records.
7. The accusation against this petitioner/accused No.4 is that she entered the house of the complainant along with accused Nos.1 to 3 and she pulled the saree of the complainant. There are no allegations against this petitioner assaulting the deceased and causing the death. The overt acts are against accused No.1-Raju who lifted and thrown the husband of the complainant on parshi tiles and caused head injury and sat on his chest and assaulted with his hand and caused his death. As there are no serious allegations against this petitioner/accused No.4 in the complainant or in the charge sheet and statements of eyewitnesses, hence she is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail with stringent conditions. The apprehension of the prosecution is that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, she will threaten the 7 complainant and other prosecution witnesses, can be met with by imposing stringent conditions.
8. 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 anticipatory bail subject to certain terms and conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner/accused No.4 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.43/2022 of Gokak Rural Police Station, subject to the following conditions:
i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer/jurisdictional Court.8
ii. The petitioner shall voluntarily appear before the jurisdictional Court within fifteen days from this day and execute bail bond and furnish surety.
iii. The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iv. The petitioner shall attend the Court on all the dates of hearing, unless exempted, and co-operate in speedy disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMM