Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 326 (KAR)

Hanamavva v. State Of Karnataka

2020-02-04

SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The present petition has been filed seeking to enlarge the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail in respect of Crime No.110/2019 of Lokapur Police Station, Mudhol Circle, Bagalkot for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.1 is a daughter-in-law of the complainant who is stated to have an illicit relationship with accused No.2. The son of the complainant who is the husband of accused No.1 on coming to know of the said illicit relationship confronted accused No.1 and accused No.2. There was a quarrel and hence the complainant had lodged a complaint stating that the accused have assaulted his son with iron pipe and abused him with filthy language and threatened him. Hence, FIR was registered for the above said offences. 3. The accused was taken into custody on 22.09.2019 and remanded to judicial custody. The bail application filed by her was rejected on 22.11.2019 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi on the ground that the victim was an eye witness to the incident. The accused taking note of the absence of her in-laws has planned to put an end to the life of her husband and therefore, accused did not deserve any sympathy. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that at the time when the learned Sessions Judge had passed an order on 22.11.2019, the investigation was still in progress and the charge sheet was yet to be filed. However, subsequently, a charge sheet has been filed on 15.11.2019 after completion of the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the victim has already been discharged and therefore, the injury which had been caused is not that grievous as complained of. In the above background, he contends that there would not be any requirement of custodial interrogation insofar as the accused No.1 is concerned. Though the offence complained of is nor serious but arises out of a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, certain latitude needs to be exercised by this Court in considering the plea for bail by the accused herein. 5. In the above background, he contends that there would not be any requirement of custodial interrogation insofar as the accused No.1 is concerned. Though the offence complained of is nor serious but arises out of a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, certain latitude needs to be exercised by this Court in considering the plea for bail by the accused herein. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of bail contending that there are grievous injuries which have been caused and irrespective whether the matter is matrimonial or otherwise, there is a harm and injury which has been caused to the victim and as such, the offence committed by the accused herein being serious in nature, no bail ought to be granted in her favour. 6. Having considered the FIR, order of the learned Sessions Judge as also the charge sheet which has been produced today and appreciating the fact that investigation has already been completed, there would be no purpose which would further be served by the accused remaining in judicial custody. 7. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the accused ought to be released on bail albeit with stringent conditions. 8. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.110/2019 of Lokapur Police Station, Mudhol Circle, Bagalkot for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 326, 504 read with 34 of IPC now pending on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot sitting at Jamkhandi, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court; ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Committal Court on every date of hearing; iii. The petitioner shall co-operate in the conclusion of the trial in the said proceedings. iv. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witness/s or evidence in any manner. v. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court without prior permission, till the case registered against her is disposed of.