Smt. Hema Alias Hemalatha vs State of Karnataka

H. Billappa, J.—The petitioner has filed this petition u/s 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying for grant of anticipatory bail.

It is stated in the petition, the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her and she has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner is ready to abide by all conditions that may be imposed. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for grant of Anticipatory bail.

It is alleged, that on 31-3-2011, at about 4.00 p.m., A1-Raju and deceased Arjun went to H.D. Kote in a Bike to see A5-Lakharam. At about 10 p.m., A1 and deceased left to Hullahalli. On the way near Kapila river bridge Arjun died. At about 10.30 p.m., A1-informed A5 that Arjun met with an accident near Kapila River bridge and died. Thereafter, the dead body was shifted to H.D. Kote Hospital. A5-informed the complainant. The complainant went to the hospital and saw the dead body of Arjun and noticed injury on the head. The complainant and community people forced A1 to reveal the truth. Then A1 told that he killed the deceased as there was ill-will between his sister and the deceased due to illicit relationship of his sister with some other person. Thereafter, complaint has been lodged and a case in Crime No. 112 of 2011 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 114 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged against her and she has been falsely implicated in the case and the allegation against the petitioner is that she instigated her brother and no overt act is attributed to the petitioner and except A1 the other accused have been granted bail and therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail.

As against this, the learned Government Pleader submitted that after investigation charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner was not available for investigation and serious allegations have been made and therefore, the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail?

It is relevant to note, the allegations are that on 31-3-2011, at about 4.00 p.m., Al and the deceased went to H.D. Kote in a Bike to see A5-Lakharam. At about 10 p.m., Al and deceased left to Hullahalli. On the way, near Kapila River bridge Arjun died. At about 10.30 p.m., A1 informed A5 that Arjun met with an accident near Kapila River Bridge and died. The dead body was shifted to H.D. Kote Hospital. A5 informed the complainant. The complainant went to the hospital and saw the dead body of his brother and noticed head injury. On enquiry, A1 revealed that he killed the deceased as there was ill-will between his sister and the deceased due to illicit relationship of his sister with some other person. The allegation, against the petitioner is that she instigated A1. Except A1, the other accused have been granted bail. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail subject to the following conditions:

(i) In the event of her arrest in Cr. No. 112 of 2011 of H.D. Kote Police Station, Mysore District, and in C.C. No. 386 of 2011 on the file of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, H.D. Kote, the petitioner shall be released on bail on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating officer/concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly without fail.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses.

(iv) If the petitioner violates any condition, the respondent-State can move for cancellation of the bail.