IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, H. CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD I DATED THIS THE 29?" DAY OF OCTOBER,_ ;20Q9u.'__'___e' A' BEFORE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.VE}I\IUCfO}?P£LA'1 "_ CRLP. No.7946 of':;:.QO9 1. Anand, S / 0 I-Ianuma1"iLa_ppa:LarI'1a:f1i,V Age: 26 years, OCC: AgriCuliure--, if g " I R/0 Hosur, Yattinahalli, I I I Tq: Siggaon, Dist:.vHaveri;* . I 2. Lokappa, SH/.Q B;I'1é1ci1'appeL.Laman£, I Age: 52 yearfs, Qec5"A3gricujt1,1i**e,__ " _ ' R/0 Hosur, Y»atL»i.n:;.éLha11i; «. Tq: Shiggaon,:Dist:":i;Ia_veri.'=. " 3. Krishna Kri-shI1é1ppa.._H'ar'iyappa Lamani, Age: 26 years,*OCé: C'o§>1:e;"~-- R / 0 Hosur, Yatt'in.ah--.aIIi.,_ ' " Tq: Sihiggaon, Disjg: Haveri. I(B}(ISri,fi@I3geId-fish Patii, Adv.) Petitioners TheI"State bf Karnataka, Ir__Through 'i;".'ac1as Police Station, High Court of Karnataka, "«_V'C-ircuit Bench at Dharwad. 'ES' Sri. P.H.Gotkhinc1i, HCGP) Respondent
¥\.)
This Crl.P is filed 11/8 439 Cr.P.C praying to direct the
Tadas Police Station to enlarge the Petitioners (Accused No.1,
2,3) kon baii in Crime No.37/2009.
This Crl.P. coming on for Orders this Clay’,””‘£lti¢V’..(.:’i(‘il7iL2:I¥’t4
made the following:
0 R D E R_ ..
Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned caounsellabpearing”forlthe.i
Petitioners has filed a Memo to dismiss the Petition’ in s’0i’farl’–
as first Petitioner Anand, S/o.Vg4ll.PI.anumantapi:5a ‘mmafii is i’
concerned, stating that the said___l?’etit’ilo_ner hwillvvvorliz out his
remedy after the chargershee.t is Vifiie.dv..VviA”*Ix/Iemo “placed on
record. The Petition in -farlas;fiVrst.:\Petit.ioner Anand, S / o
Hanumantappag_:LamaniL by reserving
liberty to hir_nl_yto the ‘Court or this Court as
the case may the_ilch_arge sheet is filed.
2. It is’,__see_I1il’frol1Ii’Petition and the statement of
objections filed,_ ‘thatlone Srnt. Devakka Lamani gave a
«.._Acor’n1:.§iai.nlt a.lleginlgi’t”nat her daughter viz., Smt.Sharada was
given in_”m’arr’ia_ge to Anand, S/o Hatiumantappa Lamani,
After the marriage, her daughter joined
her-…hus_bani;i..~ and lived in the matrimonial home. Out of the
li.__wedloel§:l,}Smt.Sharada gave birth to a female child. It is her
that, husband and others forced Sharada to bring
it was also alleged that Anand, husband of Sharada,
siiispected her fidelity at the instancefi Lokappa, S/o
/77
14.)
Bhadrappa Larnani and Krishna @ Krishnappa Hariyappa
Lamani i.e., Petitioners 2 and 3, who are the seniorfiincle
and son of junior uncle respectively, of Anand.
that there was ill treatment of Sharada at her.'”matAri’1iri:oniiaE_g0 ~
house. The complainant received a _p~hon’>_ ‘call.
09.08.2009 wherein she was
committed suicide by strangulatiion.:’.._i
message, she went to Yattiniahalli and ‘found; “of; her -. 0’
daughter in hanging position}a._iSh_e loldge:cl”:a complaint
alleging that, Sharada’~1:night”‘lhave:’ corr1rnitted” suicide on
account of the dowry by her
husband and the othgrvintwoipersons”i§.ge,”i Lokappa and
Krishna @ Krishiiaijpa or she might have
been killed wanted the matter to
be investigatedi”an;;;l_ her_ice_;i”a” .cogrn]:,i’laint was lodged at 1.00
pm oniv:i0.Qsi.fiCC9.,__i
3. Afte”rregiste’r_ing’th,e”‘_ease in Crime No. 37/2009 on the
file o;f”i’adas .Po]i_ce’$tation, for offence punishable under Sec.
EPC, the investigation has been
‘c.on1.me–nc’ed’«an’d_the statements of certain persons have been
0’recordedi”_~Thegphotograph of the dead person was taken. It
fou11~d_ ijon the body of the deceased, there was two
distant ligature marks. The Petitioners having been taken
i”nto,_cus”tody, were remanded to jail. By this Petition, they
0 seeking enlargrnent on bail. >5’
;/
is»
4. Heard the learned counsei for the Petitioners and the
iearned HCGP for Respondent. Learned counse} for the
Petitioner has taken me through the complaint-.»gdt.
10.08.2009 and submitted that the complaint agair1s.t”–«.t.wo
Petitioners herein, does not make out a prima faciie” «if-___f _
their involvement in the alleged crime. It
that, the Petitioners are innocent peopietandé are ifalsteliyfi
implicated in the Crime. Since S’/0″‘
Lamani, aged about 352 ye.a’rs___ anditthe 0tt.’t1″eir’utFfetitibnei’
Krishna @ Krishnappa Hariyappa» Laman_i_,°b.eing; not the
family members of husband of’t’heig_”deceasedii hvasaiso been
implicated in the crime .ii’unri_ecesvsa’1*iiyAiiand they may be
enlarged on bail. V
6. Sri. ieariierIvii’ii{;iCGP for the State
submitted__thativ–the_case«._regi_stered against the Petitioners is
for heiri0us* crime.’ iififi”investigation, the prosecution
proceeds against Vthe i3eti’ti.oiners, they will have to be tried for
theofferices piini.shab1e under Sec. 498»A and 302 r/W 34
xyouid attract the imprisonment of sentence of Eife
__iriiprisor1rncn’t.,_and fine and hence the bail may be refused. It
Was”‘subrri–i–tjteid§=’that, if the Petitioners are enlarged on bail,
they tamper the prosecution witnesses, hamper the
i”~ir1Vestig.at:1on and/or may flee i.e., jump bail. Hence, the
P.etit’ion may be dismissed. g
/1
7. In Vl€W of the rival contentions, the point for
Consideration is:
” Whether the Petitioners can be admitted to_bVcl_tii.<_"?~3'_.
8. The alleged incident has taken place
Complainant has filed the Complaint with Police” P
on 10.08.2009. Petitioners 2 and 3f’herein_are
members of husband of the decieaseid.’~’ii Thieyii
relatives of Petitioner No.1-‘ -‘.I_.’he corn”plainan’t’utherself is
doubtful about cause for the deathof Shar:a_da.i .VShieV_hais only
suspicion that her dailghtersi-1nList– have been. killed and
hanged or she might hiaveiicon1rnii.tted”-sfuic’ide, being not able
to bear the harassmentHand._cieimand”~foiiéloiwry. Since the
Petitioners 2 and«.i§3″_’herti:in umelmbers of the family
of the cl.eice_ased,– the case sought to be made
out in lithe ._co1nplaingt’t’.gigainV$3t the Petitioners prima facie
appears tokbe not The case against the Petitioners
being’su.spicio13.sV_iini nature, they are entitled to be admitted
00″».,on”~bai15.j’-. “To dispe’I'”the apprehension of the prosecution
abioutg of witnesses, hampering of the
iiny’o._s_tigati_on, ‘the Petitioners can be put on conditions.
4’ Henceli, I pass the following:
. _ .QB__12._12._R.
Petitioners Lokappa S/o Bhadrappa Lamani and
it imiirishna Krishnappa Hariyappa Larnani, shown as
E
/I7
Accused 2 and 3 in Tadas Police Station Crime No.37/2009,
are hereby directed to be enlarged on bail, on they e>;eccfu”tiing
personal bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/~
producing 2 local solvent sureties who sha-llV._:exVeC-ute_ the
bond for the likesum and to theirsatisfactionyof:
Court.
They shall also execute ant».1V:.indertal§ing”to’: coiriply with
the following conditions; xx/iz.,:
1. That they shall not _n.%’:it”1?ter the trial not
tamper _theal p_ros{ecutiot1 wit.r:esses’;.« either directly or
indirectly. 5′ ii
2. that shall’not.comniit”any non bailable offence.
3. they the Sessions jurisdiction of
the Court without prior permission.
‘l’=hat’~l.tAhey sh”al’l”imark their attendance in the Taclas
7PQllC¢”Si’i[atiOn once in 15 days either on a Saturday or
a”Si;_mt:lay’hetween 08.00 hours to 16.00 hours.
Libervtjistancis reserved to the prosecution to seek
cancellation of the bail, in case, any of the conditions stated
.hherelinn are violated or the Accused commit any act, which
compels the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail.
E/v
.- .
It is needless to point out that, the findings or
observations made herein are only for the purpo.sié;_of
considering piea for grant of bail and shall not
as an expression of opinion on the merits OfFh_e=.ea’se. _ The i
Trial Court is free to draw its findings jaindiiAc’one11.asionsj,A’
based on the evidence which: the pireoseeutionrvand idefi;-nice
may place on its record and shail decide Case on its
merits, uninfiuenced b;iy’~~..the_«’ifindingsVand/or observations
made herein.
Petition st.an’ds:’a11owed of Petitioners 2 and 3.
The FieVtit-ioi;:_ in the “Petitioner-Amanda S /o
Hananziiantaifip-:i;V_.Laniani,Zstands -dismissed as withdrawn.
Acieordingily, is disposed.
” aaaaa _ fl: Sd/..’.
JUDGE
1’i’li°.(C””
Leave a Reply