Loading...
Responsive image

Manjamma vs State Of Karnataka By on 2 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Manjamma vs State Of Karnataka By on 2 September, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 2% DAY OF SEPTEMBER -.

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR.JUSTi'CE.  V:  

CRIMINAL PETITION fiFO{%i§2\3o/2€§u.1Q$ : " 

BETVVEEN :

1.

Manjamma V   
W/olate Appodappaj _ '_  V
Aged about 45 Years.    V

Nanjundap}§;§;':-. 4_ I _,
S / o.D0d{ia Mfuniswanzy  
Aged a?i)0u_f:-- 50' 'yearsi;j'.--    V V.

S /o_.1a_te  '  .
Aged. about   

Pblitaxnfnav' V.  A

Njif/o;Nanj1xmd:a1ppa:
" «A:ge2gi,a,bQ&1.1t 40 jiéars.

%  _I%(;A12 'v§;)'V;i£'_j.Areha11i village
' §:I0sk0te. Taluk

A  Rural District).

 (By Si'i.V}:'{}*I.Sharass Chandra, Adv.)

   ._S§tate of Karnataka by
 Anugondanahaili P.S.

[By Sri Vijay Kumar Majage, HCGP)

. . . PETITION ERS

...RESPONDENT

This Cr1.P is filed under Section 439 C.r__.P.C
praying to eniarge the petitioners on bail in Cr.NoV.44}’ 10
of Anugondanahalii P.S., Bangalore Rural ‘Distric’t,.
which is registered for the offences punishabie-.’.fur:1der_

Sections 304-3, 143, 147, 498«~A, 504, 323.,’e3,c?”rj’w;’_g’r

Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of « _

This petition coming on for
Court made the following: ” «. . ‘

oansn

Petitioners are arra’yed as N os.2 to 5 in
Crime No.44/20,10 punishable
under 504, 323, 307
r/W. Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act
by -. ‘ ‘S

2.’ Hea1=dV”the’,-.1ea_rne’d Counsel for petitioner and

” the iearnegd Qovemrhent Pleader.

, accused is the husband of deceased

V Accused Nos.2 to 5 are the neighbors of first

accused. H After marriage, first accused and deceased

-..S[i.i\ied»’hAappiiy for a period of one year. Thereafter, first

“‘4.:accused was harassing deceased and demanding her to

bring dowry from her parental house. On 17.7.2010,

when deceased was cooking food, first accused came

N C)£\.«.,,fl’\–~*5Q)\*,

n 3 ..

home and visited the house of petitioners. After
sometime, returned home and questioned his parents as

to why they had quarreled with petitioners. At

8.80 p.m., petitioners came to the house of

The first petitioner droused kerosene ”

first accused set deceased on fire} Deceasedhwas lshiftergl f

to Victoria hospital. The above_ factsaie u

statement given by the deceasedin the hospital.

On 2 1.7.2010 deceasedpinjpuries.

4. The is In the dying

declaration’znades..ljy_deceaseld, she has attributed to

overt acts”*to” petitioner:l::_’I~Io.1. Therefore, her custodial

interroga’tion is “necessary. In so far as accused Nos.2 to

4 Varepconcerned. except their presence, no overt acts are

attribiutedll-i:g_ them.

5. the result, I pass the following order:

‘A s 4_ Petition as it relates to first petitioner is rejected.

“Petition as it relates to petitioners 2 to 4 is

” “accepted. They are released on bail, subject to following

conditions: f\J. cg’-~49″ ”

._ 4 _

1) Petitioners 2 to 4/ accused 3 to 5 shall execute

bonds for a sum of Rs.25,000/~»~ each a

surety for the likesum to the satisfaetietj

jurisdictional Court.

2) Petitioners 2 to 4/accusedegeet¢_5% ?

intimidate or tampexj the e.”‘I3:Q.sgcu’i:i0f1

witnesses.

3) Petitioners 2 £021!/aecu.j;sehd”~”3[ shall regularly

attend the CO’§li”£’.’».. if V

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information