Smt. Thippiramma vs State of Karnataka

This is the petition filed by the petitionersaccused Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, seeking anticipatory bail and to

direct the respondent-police to release the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 3 on bail in the event of their arrest for the offences punishable under

Section 498A, 306, 304B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered in respondent ? police

station in Crime No. 186/2017.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners so also the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

The brother of the deceased is the complainant in this case, wherein he has made the allegations that the petitioners along with accused No.1

were giving illtreatment and harassment to the deceased and they were also insisting her to bring the dowry amount from her parental place and the

sister of the complainant died in the house of the present petitioners. Therefore he made allegations against all the accused persons who are

responsible for causing the death of his sister.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, F.I.R., complaint and other material placed on record.

Even looking to the complaint averments, there is mention made at paragraph 2 of the complaint that since one year Ajaya Kumar-accused

No.1 took Shobha the deceased to Ranebennur as he was working in the Seeds Company and they were staying at the said place itself and at the

same time during that period the deceased Shobha became pregnant and also though the doctor told that it is difficult for her to get easy delivery of

baby, even then the accused was insisting that she has to go to Kattalagere and has to stay there only. This averment made in the complaint goes to

show that the husband and wife were residing separately at Davanagere because accused No.1 was employed in Seeds Company at Ranebennur.

Even further it is stated that since earlier to the incident they had taken one house on rental basis behind Maruti Electricals and they were staying

there together. This also supports the contention of the petitioners herein that they were residing separately and not along with the deceased and

accused No.1 when the incident took place.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made the statement that these two petitioners who are in-laws of the deceased were residing separately.

They took the contention that they are falsely implicated and they have not given any ill-treatment or harassment to the deceased. The petitioners

contended in the petition that they are innocent and also undertakes to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.

Apart from the merits of the case, the petitioner No.1 is shown to be aged 52 years and petitioner No.2 is aged about 60 years, which is not

seriously challenged by the prosecution. The alleged offences are also not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Therefore in

view of this factual matrix and in view of the above, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be granted with

anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, petition is allowed. The respondent-Police is directed to enlarge the present petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in

connection with Crime No.186/2017 registered for the above said offences, subject to the following conditions:

i. Petitioners shall execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- each and shall furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the arresting

authority.

ii. Petitioners shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.

iii. Petitioners have to make themselves available before the Investigating Officer for interrogation, as and when called for and to cooperate with the

further investigation.

iv. The petitioners have to appear before the concerned Court within 30 days from the date of this order and to execute the personal bond and the

surety bond.