Jayalakshmi @ Lakshmi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2020

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Jayalakshmi @ Lakshmi vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1684

Bench: John Michael Cunha

                                1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020

                             BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3581/2020

BETWEEN:

Jayalakshmi @ Lakshmi
W/o Manchaiah
D/o Siddegowda
Aged 55 years
R/o Kiragandur Village
Mandya Taluk
Mandya District - 571401
And also now R/at
Nalabandavadi
Near Kaka Masjid
Mandya - 571401.
                                               ... Petitioner
(By Sri.Pramod R., Advocate)


AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka
       Mandya Rural Police Station
       Mandya - 571401
       Represented by SPP
       High Court,
       Bengaluru - 01.

2.     Smt Jayalakshmi
       W/o Ramesh
       Aged about 36 years
                                 2



       R/at Kiragandur Village
       Mandya Taluk
       Mandya District - 571 401.
                                                   ... Respondents

(By Smt. K.P.Yashodha, HCGP for R1;
notice to R2 is dispensed with v/o/d 25.08.2020)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C
praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her
arrest in Cr.No.321/2020 registered by Mandya Rural Police
Station, Mandya for the offence P/U/S 504, 506, 114 and 307
read with Section 34 of IPC.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
Court made the following through video conference:

                             ORDER

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.2 is not a necessary party to the instant petition as all the offences alleged against the petitioner are IPC offences and the same are defended by the learned HCGP appearing on behalf of State. In view of the said submission, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

2. Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.321/2020 registered under Sections 504, 506, 114 and 307 read with 34 of IPC. The material allegations are leveled only against accused 3 No.1. According to the complainant, on account of the property dispute, on 08.06.2020 at about 8.30 a.m. when the husband of complainant had been to the house of accused No.1 to enquire about the incident that had taken place immediately prior thereto, accused No.1 is stated to have splashed boiled oil on the face of the husband of complainant leading to severe burn injuries. The petitioner herein is implicated solely on the allegations that the alleged incident has taken place at the instigation of the petitioner. There are no allegations that petitioner herein was present at the spot during the occurrence. No active instances of the instigation are forthcoming in the F.I.R. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the following;

ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of this order and on her appearance, the Investigating Officer shall interrogate the petitioner and shall enlarge her on bail on the same day subject to the following conditions:- 4

a. The petitioner/accused No.2 shall furnish a bond in a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer; b. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required; c. She shall co-operate in the investigation;

d. She shall not threaten or allure the prosecution witnesses; and e. She shall mark her attendance in Mandya Rural Police Station, Mandya on the 15th of every month until submission of the final report.

Sd/-

JUDGE NBM/KA

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court