Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manappa S/O Nagappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101744 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MANAPPA S/O NAGAPPA
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HANUMANAL, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
2. SRI. VINOD S/O NAGAPPA
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: HANUMANAL, TQ: GANGAVATHI,
DIST: KOPPAL.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH PSI, KANAKAGIRI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. S P P
SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.ANAND. K. NAVALAGIMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE SEEKING TO ENLARGE THEM
ON BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS DEEM IT FIT IN
KANAKAGIRI POLICE STAION CRIME NO.33 OF 2017 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 498A, 304B
READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961.
:2:
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No.1 and 4 under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking their release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 498A, 302, 304B, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent/Police Station Crime No.33/2017 and after conducting the investigation charge sheet came to be filed for the alleged offences punishable under Section 143, 498A, 304B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused No.1 and 4, so also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State.
:3:
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that even earlier also the petitioners approached this Court and this court disposed of the said petition on 06th day of June 2017 passed in Criminal Petition No.101020/2017. Learned counsel made the submission that accused No.2 and 3 who are the parents of the accused No.1 were granted with bail by the order of this Court in the said petition. But so far as the present petitioners are concerned the earlier bail petition came to be rejected. Learned counsel made the submission that though at the first instance one of the alleged offence was under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but while filing the charge sheet the said offence was deleted and it was for the offence under Section 304B apart from other offences. He made the submission that so far as petitioner/accused No.4 is concerned there are no specific allegations and serious allegations are against petitioner/accused No.1. He submitted that now the investigation completed and charge sheet is filed, by :4: imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP made the submission that looking to the earlier order passed by this Court, this Court has already held that there is a prima facie case as against the present petitioners who are accused No.1 and
4. Hence, he made the submission that the petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. Hence, he submitted to reject the petition.
5. Perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also the entire charge sheet material produced by the petitioners along with the petition. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, when the earlier bail petition was considered the charge sheet was not yet filed. Hence, it is his contention that now the charge sheet is filed and petitioners are entitled to be granted with bail basing on the charge sheet material. Perusing the order passed by this Court in paragraph No.6 of the said order, this Court comes to the :5: conclusion that perusing the materials there is a prima facie case against all the accused persons. But accused No.2 and 3 were released on bail considering their age factor. When the Court has already held that there is prima facie case against all the accused persons and rejected the earlier bail application in respect of the present petitioners, I am of the opinion that petitioners are not entitled to be granted with bail. Accordingly the petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE RHR/-