Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/201145/2020 of SIDDAVVA AND ANR Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 30 December 2020
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA CRIMINAL PETITION No.201145/2020 BETWEEN: 1. Siddavva W/o Bheeranna Hanjagi Age: 58 Years, Occ: Household Work 2. Jagadevi W/o Mallappa Pujari (Hanjagi), Age: 39 Years
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAKALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30[TR]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2020.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.201145/2020
BEI|WEE
1.Siddavva W/o Bheeranna Hanjagdi
Age: 58 Years, Occ: Household Work
2.Jagadevi W/o Mallappa Pujari
(Hanjagi), Age: 39 Years ©
Occ: Housenold Work
Both the petitioners are |R/o Shanti Nagar, Vijayapura-586 101.R/o Shanti Nagar, Vijayapura-586 101.
... Petitioner
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar Chnandriki, Advocate)
AND
The State of KarnatakaThrough Golgumbaz P.S. |Vijayapura-586 101Represented by SPPHign Court BuildingKalaburagi-585107
(By Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP) ©
.. Respondent.
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 ofCr.P.C. praying to allow the petition and consequently be|pieased to order for enlarging the petitioners on bail inCrime No.137/2020, registered by the Golgumbaz P.S. foroffences punishable under Sections 143, 14/7, 109, 323,307, 498-A, 504 R/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 ofD.P. Act, pending before the Principal CJM, Vijayapura.
Page 1 of 4
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the}Court passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioners — accused Nos.3 and 4 are before|this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Codeof Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) in CrimeNo.137/2020 of Golgumbaz Police Station, registered|against the accused Nos.1 to / for the offences punishableunder Sections 143, 147, 109, 323, 307, 498-A, 504 read|with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) andSection 4 of Dowry Pronibition Act, on the basis of first|information lodged by the informant-Sri Hanamagouda.
2D.Brief facts of the case are that, the informant-Hanamagouda lodged the first information against theaccused stating that the injured-Vijaya is his daughter andshe was given in marriage to accused No.1. Their marriage was performed on 11.07.2019. At the time of marriage, —06 tolas of gold and cash of Rs.8,00,000/- was given as|dowry along with the household articles. Only for about aweek or 15 days, the accused nave looked after the victimproperly, thereafter they started demanding additionaldowry and they were ill-treating ner potn physically andmentally and used to abuse her in filthy language. The.elders in the village have advised the accused to lookedafter the victim properly, Dut still accused No.1 being tnehusband, accused No.2 the father-in-law, accused No.3 themother-in-law, accused No.4 the sister-in-law, accusedNo.5 the brother-in-law, were ill-treating the victim everynow and then. On 03.10.2020, the victim who could nottolerate the ill-treatment went to Women Police Station,Vijayapura to lodge the complaint, but the same was notaccepted by accused Nos.6 and 7. On 03.10.2020 at 3.00or 3.30 p.m. when the victim was in the house of theaccused, accused Nos.1 to 5 forming themselves intounlawful assembly with an intention to cause the death of the victim, assaulted her black and blue and tried to Sstranguiate her neck. They Nave also poured poisonforcibly in her mouth. Tne passersby have came andrescued tne victim and admitted her to the hospital.Therefore, the informant requested the police to registerthe case against all the accused and to initiate the legal|action. Accordingly, the police nave registered the caseand took up the investigation.
Page 2 of 4
3. Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Cnandriki, learned|counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sharanabasappa M.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for therespondent — State. Perused the materials on record.
4Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted|tnat these petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 4|who are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the victim.They have not committed any offence as alleged. Theyhave been falsely implicated in the matter without any|basis. Tne only allegations made against these petitioners|are that they were ill-treating the victim by demandingadditional dowry. Further, it is the allegation that on the
date of incident, they joined hands with other accused and.tried to cause the death of the injured. The learned|counsel further submitted that the victim has _ not!sustained any injuries and only general allegations aremade against all the accused, without any basis. These|petitioners were apprehended on 04.10.2020. Since then,they are in judicial and they are not required for furtherinvestigation. They are the permanent residents of theaddress mentioned in the petition. The petitioners areready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that.would be imposed py this Court. Hence, he prays forallowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government)Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious|allegations are made against the petitioners and otheraccused for having committed the offences. Marriagebetween the victim and accused No.1 was performed on11.07.2019. Within few days, these petitioners haveStarted ill-treating the victim by demanding additional|
dowry. First attempt was made to lodge the compliant on03.12.2019. But, the same was not accepted by accused|Nos.6 and 7. On 03.10.2020 with an intention to cause|tne death of the victim, these petitioners nave assaultedher, strangulated her neck and administered poison|forcibly. Looking to the seriousness of the offences, thesepetitioners are not entitled for grant of bail and, he,therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
Page 3 of 4
6. Perused the materials on record in the light of the rival submissions. The allegations made against the|petitioners are of serious in nature. Learned High CourtGovernment Pleader submitted tnat tne victim suffered|burn injuries and she has undergone treatment. But, nomaterials are produced before the court to substantiatesuch contentions. The first information is silent about|causing sucn burn injuries to the victim. No medicalrecords are produced in support of sucn contention.Admittedly,|thesepetitioners|Wer,rapprehendedOn|04.10.2020 and since then they are in judicial custody.
They are not required for custodial interrogation.|Therefore, the detention of the petitioners in judicialcustody may amount to pretrial punisnment. Theapprenension expressed py the learned High CourtGovernment Pleader that the petitioners may abscond ormay tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses can betaken care of by imposing suitable conditions. Hence, Iam of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to beenlarged on bail subject to conditions wnhicn will take careof apprehension expressed by the learned High CourtGovernment Pleader. Hence, I proceed to pass thefollowing:
ORDER
The petition is allowed. —
The Petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in|Crime No. 13/7/2020 of Golgumbaz Police Station onobtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees TwoLakhs only) each with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to thefollowing conditions:
a)Tne petitioners snali not commit similaroffences.offences.
D)Tne petitioners snall not threaten ortamper with the prosecution witnesses.tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
Cc)The petitioners shall appear before theCourt as and when required.Court as and when required.
Sd/-—
JUDGE
BL|
Page 4 of 4
Loading citations and judicial treatment…