IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE l7” DAY OF JANUARY2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10038/2011 BETWEEN: Kallappa, Sb Makkappa Chiniwal, Age 50 years, 0cc: Kirana Business. R/o Malali, now at Kadapatti, Tq: Jamkhandi, Dist: Bagalkot. Petitioner (By Shri S. S. Path, Advocate) AND: The State, Jamakhandi Town Police Station. Represented by SPP, Circuit Bench, Dharwad. Respondent (By Shri K. B. Adhyapak, AGA) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail in Jamkhandi Town P.S. Crime No.161/10 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(a), 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and etc. This petition coming on for Orders this day. the Court made the following: ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate. 2. The brief facts are as follows: That one Suvarna who was said to have been married to the petitioner, after the death of his wife about 8 years prior to the marriage, it is stated that the petitioner had three children by his first wife, two daughters and a son, and one of the daughters is already married and the other daughter is of marriageable age and the son is also grown up. The petitioner was about 50 years old and the deceased Suvarna was aged about 46 years. It is alleged that though the petitioner and his wife lived harmoniously for over three years, thereafter there were complainants that the deceased was not good looking and that she was not also cooking well and therefore, it appears most of the time she would go away to her maternal home on account of such constant nagging. It is stated that, this ultimately led to her committing suicide on 28.11.2010 when her dead body was found in an open well at Kadapatti. It is on the allegation of the complainant that the deceased was being constantly ill-treated by the accused that a case was registered against them. The accused Nos.2 and 3 who are the son and daughter were, however, enlarged on bail and the petitioner’s bail petition was rejected on the ground that he was the prime accused and that there was a prima facie case made out that it was his constant harassment which had led the deceased to commit suicide. It is in this background that the present petition is filed. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit, that the relationship between the petitioner the deceased were cordial and the petitioner had little to gain by driving the (3 4 deceased to death, by instigation. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was harassment for dowry or for other reasons, The allegation that the petitioner was constantly harassing the deceased as regards her looks or her cooking are not grounds which could have driven her to suicide. On the other hand, it is claimed that it is because of the fact that she was insulted in her matrimonial house where she was visiting, that she has committed suicide. The learned Counsel would further submit, that there is no indication of any witnesses having stated that there was constant harassment by the petitioner and his children, which could possibly have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the court below having rejected the bail petition on the footing that though his son and daughter cannot be held responsible for her death, the petitioner could be so held responsible for the death of his wife, is without any basis as there are no overt acts alleged against the petitioner nor are there any statement of any witnesses available at this point of time. 5 4. The learned Government Advocate would seek time to file statement ofobjections after obtaining instructiona 5. From a plain reading of the proceedings, as is apparentfromtheimpugnedorder,itisclearthatitisonmeie suspicion that tie petitioner is sought to be alleged with the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner, has therefore, made out a case to be enlarged on bail. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: I. The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000I- with one solvent surety for a lilce sua 2. The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction ofthe Court without the leave ofthe Court (S 6 3. The petitioner shall not seek to threaten or influence the prosecution witnesses at any point of time. 4. The petitioner shall attend the trial on every date of hearing except if exempted from such appearance for good and valid reason, With the above conditions, the petition is allowed. Sd/lb Sub!