Karnataka High Court
Smt. Geethamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2023
Bench: M G Uma
-1-
CRL.P No. 1498 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SMT. GEETHAMMA
W/O. P. R. MANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT JANATHA COLONY,
HITTALA VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 427.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT.SUMA HIREBIDARI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESH
SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NANDINI B G
AND:
Location: High
Court Of
Karnataka THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
REP BY THEIR STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BANGALORE-560001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAHUL RAI.K.HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.210/2022
OF SHIKARIPURA RURAL P.S., SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 306 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC (Jr.Dn), SHIVAMOGGA.
-2-
CRL.P No. 1498 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court
seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.210/2022 of
Shikaripura Rural Police Station, registered for the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information
lodged by the informant H.S.Erappa.
2. Heard Smt. Suma Hirebidari for Sri Rajesh
Shetty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul
Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2. She is
innocent and law abiding citizen. She has not committed
any offence as alleged. She has been falsely implicated in
the matter without any basis. She is having reasonable
CRL.P No. 1498 of 2023
apprehension of being arrested by the police. Therefore,
she is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that deceased
was the accused in a criminal case and committed suicide
on 15.09.2022. The judgment of acquittal was passed by
the trial Court on 16.09.2022. The petitioner is not
responsible for the death of the deceased. She is also not
required for interrogation. She is the permanent resident
of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition
and she is ready and willing to abide by any of the
conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence,
she prays to allow the petition in the interest of justice.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious
allegations are made against the petitioner for having
committed the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of
IPC. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, she may
never turn up before the Investigating Officer and she may
abscond or may commit similar offences, threaten or
CRL.P No. 1498 of 2023
tamper the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner is entitled
for grant of anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
7. The informant lodged the first information
making specific allegations regarding the death of his son
who died due to suicide by hanging. It is stated that
accused being witnesses in Spl.C.No.104/2020 were
harassing the deceased by demanding money and thereby,
they have abetted commission of suicide by the deceased.
It is stated that the deceased was acquitted in the criminal
CRL.P No. 1498 of 2023
case in Spl.C.No.104/2020 on the file of Additional District
and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II (POCSO) Shivamogga, but
unfortunately on the previous date i.e., on 15.09.2022,
the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The nature of
the allegations does not require the petitioner for custodial
interrogation. Hence, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail subject to
conditions, which will take care of the apprehensions
expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader
that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or
threaten the prosecution witnesses.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is allowed.
The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in the
event of her arrest in Crime No.210/2022 of Shikaripura
CRL.P No. 1498 of 2023
Rural Police Station. The petitioner is entitled for the
benefit of parity with that of accused No.4.
The petitioner is directed to appear before the
Investigating Officer within 15 days from the date of
receipt of this order and on her appearance, the
Investigating Officer shall enlarge her on bail subject to
the following conditions:-
a. The petitioner shall furnish the bond in a
sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs
only) with two sureties for the likesum to
the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer;
b. The petitioner shall not commit similar
offences;
c. The petitioner shall appear before the
Investigating Officer or the court as and
when required; and
d. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper
the prosecution witnesses.
CRL.P No. 1498 of 2023
On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the
Investigating Officer is at liberty to verify the correctness
of the address and authenticity of the documents
furnished by her. On satisfaction of the said documents,
she may proceed to accept the sureties within a
reasonable time.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CA
