Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs G. Ningappa Nishani Mallappa @ ... on 10 January, 2022
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.927/2021
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
CHITRADURGA,
REPT. BY STAE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA,
BENGALURU-560001. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)
AND:
1. G. NINGAPPA NISHANI MALLAPPA @
G.N.MALLAPPA,
S/O G.S.MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
RETD., SDC, CMC AT DAVANAGERE.
2. MEENAKSHAMMA,
W/O G.NINGAPPA NISHANI MALLAPPA
@ G.N.MALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
HOUSEHOLD.
BOTH ARE R/O 2ND CROSS, NEHRU NAGAR,
CHITRADURGA,
NOW R/O IN FRONT OF OLD KGID OFFICE,
HOLALAKERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA. ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 ABATED)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2)
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (a) CANCEL THE BAIL ORDER DATED
25.10.2019 IN CRL.MISC.NO.1026/2019 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA AND
CANCEL THE SAID ORDER OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 114, 498(A), 304(B)
READ WITH 34 OF IPC (b) DIRECT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENT
TO BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED TO CUSTODY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The police report shows that respondent No.1 is no more
and along with the report, certificate of death of respondent
No.1 is placed on record. Hence, the case against respondent
No.1 is abated.
2. Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
3. The State has filed this petition under Section 439(2)
of Cr.P.C. challenging the granting of bail in favour of respondent
No.2, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, wherein an
allegation is made against the mother-in-law that she subjected
the deceased for dowry harassment. The Trial Court in
paragraph No.16 of its judgment passed in
Crl.Misc.No.1026/2019 filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. made
an observation that the allegation of dowry harassment requires
full fledged trial and it is not necessary to keep them behind the
bar and comes to the conclusion that the petition requires to be
allowed.
4. Having considered the reasons and also the very
contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the petitioner-State that witnesses have given
statement regarding subjecting her for dowry harassment, the
same is a matter of trial and only based on the statement of the
witnesses, it is not appropriate to keep respondent No.2 in
custody. Hence, I do not find any reasons to invoke Section
439(2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail.
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
