Siddagangamma and Sujathamma vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is by accused Nos. 3 and 5 u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail to direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120(b), 498A, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No. 523/2013. The brief facts of the case as per the averments in the complaint are that on 29.8.2013 the complainant Smt. Lakshmi Devi made a complaint to the respondent-police stating that on 7.2.2004 she entered into wedlock with Rangaswamy and she has two male issues who are studying in school. On 28.6.2013 at about 9.30 a.m. complainant''s husband Rangaswamy, his father Rangaswamaiah, mother Bhaghyamma, Bhagyamma''s sister Siddagangamma and their mother Sujathamma all residing in Janatha colony, Dasanpura Hobli with a common intention called the complainant in the guise of her sister-in-law''s marriage, threatened her to give all her jewels or else they would kill her by pouring kerosene. They caught hold of her and assaulted her with sticks and hands causing injuries to her private parties and snatched her golden jewellery worth Rs. 3,00,000/-. Even they tried to pour kerosene on her body, but she escaped. On the basis of the said complaint, case has been registered. On the apprehension of their arrest, petitioners have filed this petition.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order passed by the Fast Track Court No. II, Bangalore Rural District and other materials placed on record.

Perusing the date of incident and also the complaint lodged, it is seen that prima facie there is a delay of two months in lodging the complaint. The offences alleged are all triable by the Magistrate Court. The petitioners have pleaded in the petition that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the case and they are ready to abide by any reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. The offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. With regard to the apprehension of the prosecution that if anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioners may tamper the prosecution witnesses and they may abscond, reasonable conditions can be imposed which will safeguard the interest of the prosecution. With regard to the apprehension of their arrest at the hands of the respondent-police petitioners have made out a case and their apprehension is well founded.

Both the petitioners are women. Petitioner No. 2 is stated to be more than 60 years old, which fact is not seriously disputed by the other side. Looking to all these materials on record, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent police are directed to release the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 120(b), 498A, 324, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in Crime No. 523/2013 subject to the following conditions:

I. The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each and shall offer one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction concerned Magistrate Court.

II. The petitioners shall appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, whenever called upon to do so.

III. The petitioners shall not intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

IV. The petitioners shall attend before the respondent police station on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. till-completion of investigation.

V. The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate Court within thirty days from the date of this order and shall execute personal bond as well as surety bond.