High CourtsSingle Bench(2024) 11 KAR CK 0047

Manjegowda & Others vs State Of Karnataka By Kikkeri Police Station Krishnaraja Pete Taluk Mandya District - 571423. Represented By SPP, High Court Of Karnataka, Bengaluru � 560001

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 13 November 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
S Vishwajith Shetty, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Petition No. 11417 Of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 751 words

S Vishwajith Shetty, J

1.

Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Crime No.110/2024 registered by the Kikkeri Police Station, Mandya, for offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are before this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3.

First Information Report in Crime No.110/2024 was registered by the Kikkeri Police Station, Mandya, for the aforesaid offences against Mohan and the petitioners on the basis of the first information dated 21.08.2024 received from the de-facto complainant who is the father of the deceased Dhanalakshmi. Apprehending arrest in the said case, petitioners had filed Crl. Misc.5269/2024 before the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya (sitting at Srirangapatna) which was dismissed on 18.09.2024. Therefore, they are before this Court.

4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the deceased had committed suicide and false case has been registered against the accused persons on the basis of first information submitted by the father of the deceased making false and baseless allegations. He submits that accused No.1 who is the son of the petitioners had committed suicide subsequently and he has died. Petitioners aged 62 and 55 years have no other criminal antecedent and they are agriculturists by avocation. They are ready to cooperate with the police for investigation. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

5.

Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the petition. He submits that investigation of the case is still under progress and he has submitted the records of the case for the perusal of this court. He prays to dismiss the petition.

6.

Learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submits that photographs produced by the de-facto complainant before this court would clearly go to show that the deceased had not committed suicide. Since the death is within seven years from the date of marriage, there is a presumption against the accused persons. Therefore custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

7.

Marriage of the deceased Dhanalakshmi who is the daughter of first informant with accused No.1 was performed about two years back to the date of first information. She had delivered a girl child and had subsequently returned to her matrimonial house. After a period of one week, on 20.08.2024 the first informant had received the information that Dhanalakshmi had committed suicide in her matrimonial house by hanging. He suspected the hand of accused persons who are the husband and in-laws of Dhanalakshmi in the death of his daughter and therefore he had approached the police and submitted first information, based on which FIR in Crime No. 110/2024 was registered for the aforesaid offences. During the course of investigation, the police have obtained the post mortem report of the deceased Dhanalakshmi. In the final report, about the cause of death it is mentioned that ‘death is due to asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging’. The report also would reveal that the deceased had no external injuries on any part of her body. Petitioners have lost their son, i.e., accused No.1 after Dhanalakshmi had died. They are aged persons and agriculturists by avocation.

8.

Considering the aforesaid aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the petitioners’ prayer for grant of bail has to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The respondent - Police or any other police in the State of Karnataka are directed to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 110/2024 registered by the Kikkeri Police Station, Mandya, for offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 103(1), 115(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, subject to the following conditions:

1.

The petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and each of them shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the investigating officer.

2.

Petitioners shall regularly appear before the Trial Court without fail unless exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.

3.

Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witness and they shall co-operate with the police for investigation and appear before them whenever called upon.

4.

The petitioners shall not involve in similar offences in future.