Saroja vs State Of Karnataka By Sira Police, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore - 560001

M G Uma, J

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.119/2024 of Sira Police Station, pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Sira registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 114, 323. 376, 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant Smt.Kumuda.

Heard Sri. Sachin B.S., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rajath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent -State. Perused the materials on record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. She has not committed any offence as alleged. She has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He contended that the petitioner is a lady and she is the mother-in-law of the victim. The incident had taken place on 04.02.2024 and again on 09.03.2024. But there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint as the same was lodged on 15.03.2024. Even though Section 376 of IPC is invoked, the same is against accused No.2. No injuries have been sustained by the victim to invoke Section 323 of IPC. The petitioner is aged more than 50 years and she is in judicial custody since 16.03.2024. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. She is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against all the accused including the petitioner for having committed the offence. The petitioner has assisted accused No.2 in commission of heinous offence and investigation is still in progress. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

The allegations made against the petitioner is of serious nature. It is stated that accused No.2 being Father-in-law committed sexual assault on the victim and the petitioner has supported him. Admittedly, the petitioner was apprehended on 15.03.2024 and the prosecution has not produced any materials that are collected in support of its contention to prima-facie support the case. It is not the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation. The petitioner being a lady is aged more than 50 years. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.119/2024 of Sira Police Station, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences.

b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail.

On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.