High CourtsSingle Bench

Mallamma Seer vs The State of Karnataka

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 19 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 05 KAR CK 0035

HON’BLE JUDGES
B. Manohar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 147, 149, 201, 302
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 2724 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 468 words

B. Manohar, J.—This petition is filed u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking for bail is Crime No. 26/2011 of Narona Police Station, Gulbarga District for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 201 r/W 149 of IPC.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant one Basavaraj S/o Sangappa filed a complaint that his daughter by name Mandakini was married to accused No. 1 Sharanabasappa about three years back. She was harassed and ill-treated by the husband and in-laws demanding to bring money from her parents, and forced her to commit suicide. Further it is alleged that prior to six months of the suicide she was forcefully aborted by her in-laws in order to get more dowries. On the basis of the said complaint, a case was registered and husband, mother-in-law and brother-in law have been arrested. All the three approached the Sessions Court for bail. The said bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court on 18.4.2011. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking for bail.

3.

In the bail petition the Petitioner has contended that she is aged about sixty years and is suffering from ill health and she is not solved in the offence alleged in the complaint Unnecessarily her name was included and a false case has been registered against her. There is no specific allegation in the complaint with regard to the role of the Petitioner causing death of Mandakini and sought for grant of bail.

4.

On the other hand, the HCGP argued in support of the order passed by the Sessions Court and contended that the Petitioners role is also there for committing suicide of the said Mandakini. The husband and in-laws have forced the Mandakini for aborting her child prior to six months of her suicide and she is not entitled for any bail.

5.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the parties and perused the necessary records.

6.

If is not in dispute that the Petitioner is the mother-in-law of the deceased, she is aged about six years, and she is suffering from various diseases. She has been in judicial custody from 19.3.2011.

7.

As could be seen from the complaint there is no specific allegation regarding the role of the Petitioner in the death of Mandakini The matter has to be tried by the Sessions judge. Till then, the Petitioner is entitled for the bail. Accordingly, I pass the following orders:

Criminal Petition is allowed. The Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties for like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court subject to following conditions:

i) The Petitioner shall Co-operate for the enquiries/Investigation.

ii) The Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.