Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 904 (KAR)

Sunandamma v. State

2020-05-26

MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner has sought to enlarge her on bail in connection with Crime No.68/2019 of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station now pending in C.C. No.613/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Chikkanayakanahalli, Tumkuru District. Chargesheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 448, 341, 302 r/w 149 IPC. 3. It is stated by the prosecution that on 31.05.2019, the complainant along with her father Sri Chittayya (deceased) went to Chikkanayakanahalli Court to give surety for one Jagadish who is none other than the husband of complainants sister Bhagyamma. While returning, they visited Ramappanahatti Village and went to the house of Bhagyamma. It is alleged that when they were in the said house, at about 4.00 p.m. the mother of Jagadish by name Anusuyamma and sister of Jagadish by name Sunandamma i.e., the present petitioner who were in the neighbourhood, started abusing the complainant and her father questioning them as to why Chittayya gave surety to Jagadish and released him on bail. A quarrel ensued and in the said quarrel, the petitioner as well as other accused persons are said to have dragged the deceased and the petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused No.1, assaulted the deceased with a club on his head and smashed his head on the floor, consequent to which he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a sudden quarrel ensued and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause any such injuries to the deceased or to cause his death. He submits that the deceased was a heart patient and he died due to myocardial infarction. He further submits that the petitioner is a woman and now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed and other accused have been enlarged on bail and therefore, seeks to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposes grant of bail to the petitioner and seeks to reject the petition. 6. I have perused the post mortem report wherein it is stated that the death is on account of myocardial infarction, as a result of coronary artery disease precipitated due to injuries sustained. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader opposes grant of bail to the petitioner and seeks to reject the petition. 6. I have perused the post mortem report wherein it is stated that the death is on account of myocardial infarction, as a result of coronary artery disease precipitated due to injuries sustained. It is not in dispute that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. All the other accused have been enlarged on bail. Petitioner is a woman and she is not required for any further investigation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail, subject to conditions. Hence, the following: ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.68/2019 of Chikkanayakanahalli Police Station, Tumakuru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 341, 302 r/w Sec.149 of IPC, (C.C No.613/2019 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, C.N.Halli, Tumkur District) subject to the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court/committal Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly. (iii) The petitioner shall be regular in attending the Court proceedings. (iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial court unless prior permission from the trial court.