Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1403 (KAR)

Neelamba v. State of Karnataka

2013-12-16

H.S.KEMPANNA

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioners, who are arrayed as A.1 to A.5 in Cr.No.353/2013 on the file of the respondent/police registered for the offences under Sections 306 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, 1961, are before this Court praying for grant of anticipatory bail. 2. The respondent/police on the complaint of one Suma, W/o. Late Lokesh on 12.10.2013 have registered the above case against these petitioners and have taken up investigation. 3. It is alleged among other things in the complaint, the deceased Lokesh is foster son of A.1. He was brought up by A.1 ever since he was bay of six months. The complainant Suma was given in marriage to the deceased on 15.5.2013. It is alleged three days prior to the marriage A.1 had been given cash of Rs.80,000/- for the purposes of buying scooter to the deceased, 100 grams of gold jewels, another cash of Rs.50,000/- and after the marriage further cash of Rs.70,000/- had been given as dowry. After the marriage the complainant Suma was living with her deceased husband Lokesh in the 4th Floor of the house where A.1 was living along with her two grand-daughters who are A.3 and A.4 in the case. A.2, who is daughter of A.1, is living with her husband in her marital house situated at Mysore along with A.5, who is her another daughter. It is the case of the prosecution, the accused being not satisfied with the dowry that had been given by the father of the complainant at the time of marriage, the accused started subjecting the complainant to cruelty and harassment both mentally and physically on the ground of demand for additional dowry and they were pressurizing the complainant to get the same from her parents house. Such being the position, it is the case of the prosecution, on 12.10.2013 in the morning a quarrel ensued between the complainant, deceased on the one hand and the accused on the other hand in the 2nd floor of the house where they were living in respect of demand for dowry which they were making from the complainant by pressurizing the deceased. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution, the deceased at about 10.00 a.m. went to his house, locked the door, consumed poison and succumbed to the same. Thereafter, it is the case of the prosecution, the deceased at about 10.00 a.m. went to his house, locked the door, consumed poison and succumbed to the same. Thus the accused have abated the deceased to commit suicide on the ground of demand for dowry and hence they have committed the aforementioned offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, petitioner Nos.2 and 5, who are the daughter and grand-daughter of the first petitioner, are residing at Mysore in the house of their husband and father respectively. They are permanent residents of Mysore. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the daughters of petitioner No.2. However, the said two daughters were residing with their grand-mother/petitioner No.1 at Bangalore. The allegation that petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were subjecting the complainant to cruelty and harassment on the ground of demand for dowry having regard to the position in which they are placed is far from truth. He further submits, the deceased is the foster son of first accused. He has been brought up by her ever since he was six months old and she has performed his marriage. At no point of time they had demanded any dowry either prior to the marriage or after the marriage and had accepted the same. A false complaint has been filed at the behest of the persons who are ill- deposed towards them. As all of them hail from a respectable family having deep roots in the society, they be granted the relief of anticipatory bail. 5. Application filed by the petitioners is opposed by the State. 6. The offence alleged against the petitioners is one under Sections 306 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act 1961. They are not punishable with extreme penalty. Admittedly, petitioner Nos.2 and 5 are living permanently at Mysore in the house of their husband and father respectively. Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 who are daughters of petitioner No.2 are living with their grand-mother at Bangalore namely petitioner No.1. As the material on record reveals that the deceased is foster son of the first petitioner/first accused, as all the petitioners are women, in the circumstances, I do not find any justification to decline their request for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. As the material on record reveals that the deceased is foster son of the first petitioner/first accused, as all the petitioners are women, in the circumstances, I do not find any justification to decline their request for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER Criminal petition is allowed. The petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No.353/2013 on the file of the respondent - police, they are directed to release them on bail on each of them executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the Committal Magistrate, subject to the following conditions:- 1. They shall appear before the respondent/police on or before 30.01.2014 for the purposes of their arrest and release. 2. They shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 3. They shall make themselves available to the Investigating Agency as and when required for the purposes of investigation.