AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent - State. Perused the records.
The wife of petitioner - accused No. 1 by name Smt. V. Jyothi W/o. Vadde Shekar has lodged a private complaint in P.C. No. 4/2008 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & J.M.F.C., Bellary, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 498A, 307, 494, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C.'' for brevity) and Sections 5 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The specific allegations made against petitioners are that on 16.06.2008 around 4 p.m. the accused persons went to the house of complainant, abused her in filthy language and manhandled her and petitioner - accused No. 1 has throttled the neck of complainant with an intention to kill her with the support of other accused persons Mother of the complainant came to the rescue of complainant. On 17.06.2008 the complainant has reported the matter to police, but so far no action has been taken in this regard. It is also stated that accused No. 6 has also tried to lodge a false complaint against the complainant and her family members. In fact the police after due enquiry have found that there was no truth in the said complaint. On these allegations complaint was referred to the police and the police have registered a F.I.R. in No. 89/2008. After conducting investigation police have filed charge sheet showing the petitioners as absconding. It is seen from the records that the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 100464/2014 by name Honnappa, who is arrayed as accused No. 4 was arrested by police in the month of February 2014 and since then he has been in judicial custody. The petitioners in Crl. P. 100465/2014 have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.
It is contended by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners were not aware about private complaint filed against them, summons were not issued to them and police have also not went to them by virtue of warrant being issued against them, proclamation issued was also not within the knowledge of petitioners. Therefore, they have not even made any attempt to file any bail petition at the earlier stages. It is also contended by learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are labour class people and they go to different places in search of work. Therefore, they were unaware about the criminal case pending against them.
Even looking to the contents of complaint, the allegations are made only against the petitioner Vadde Shekar that he has actually attempted to throttle the neck of complainant in the year 2008. Subsequently what has happened is not at all available in the charge sheet papers. Further added to that, there is no allegation that she has suffered any severe injury and those injuries are fatal to the life of complainant. So far as other petitioners are concerned, there are no other allegations, except that they have colluded with accused No. 1 and there are no overt acts alleged in the complaint itself in order to attract the provisions as noted in the complaint. Under the above said circumstances, in my opinion, it is not fair to reject the bail merely on the ground that proclamation has been issued against the petitioners. It is specifically pleaded that they have not received any summons or warrant from the Court. The complaint appears to have been filed in the year 2008 and it fortifies that the petitioners might not have received any summons or warrant. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to some stringent conditions. Hence, the following is passed:
ORDER
Crl. P. No. 100465/2014 filed u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Petitioners are entitled to be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 89/2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 498A, 307, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of I.P.C. and Sections 5 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they shall surrender before the trial Court within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. They shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of Committal/trial Court, as the case may be.
Crl. P. No. 100464/2014 filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one solvent surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of Committal/trial Court, as the case may be.
The petitioners in both the petitions are subjected to the following conditions:
i) Petitioners shall not indulge themselves in hampering the investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
ii) Petitioners shall make themselves available to Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of investigation, interrogation etc.
iii) Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bellary District without prior permission of jurisdictional Magistrate, till the case registered against them is disposed of.
iv) Petitioners shall regularly attend the Court on all the future hearing dates, unless prevented by any genuine cause.