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
