IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.

DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, VIJAYAPURA

PRESENT: Sri.H.Channegowda, B.Sc.,LL.B.,

IV Addl. Dist & Sessions Judge,
Vijayapura.

Dated this 2nd Day of July 2016

Cril.Misc.No.440/2016

Petitioners:

1) Santosh S/o Baddu Rathod,

Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Hadalsang LT-2, Tq: Indi,
Dist: Vijayapur.

(Dismissed as not pressed

as per order dated 20.6.2016)

2) Maruti S/o Baddu Rathod,

Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o: Hadalsang LT-2, Tq: Indi,
Dist: Vijayapur.

3) Chandabai W/o Baddu Rathod,

Age: 65 years, Occ: H.H.Work,
R/o: Hadalsang LT-2, Tq: Indi,
Dist: Vijayapur.

(By Sri.S.R.Golai, Advocate)

//Verses//

Respondent:

1) The State of Karnataka

(Represented by Public Prosecutor,

District Court, Vijaypura)
 2
Crl.Misc.No.440/2016

ORDER

This is a bail petition filed by the petitioners

No.2 & 3/ accused No.2 & 3 under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.

seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.91/2016 of Horti

police station, for the offences punishable

U/Sec.498(A), 323, 324 and 504 R/W Sec.34 of I.P.C

on the following grounds.

2. The petitioners are innocent of alleged offences and

they have not at all committed the said offences. The

complainant has filed a false complaint against them

just to give harassment. The petitioner No.2 & 3 are

residing separately in the said Tanda. They are ready

to abide by the conditions that may be imposed by this

court and ready to give surety to the satisfaction of

the court.

Mainly among these grounds, it is prayed to allow

the bail petition as prayed for.

3. The prosecution has opposed the bail petition by filing

objection. In the objection the prosecution has

reiterated the main averments of the complaint and

further it is contended that, the petitioners have

committed non bailable offence and that if they are

released on bail they will threaten the prosecution

witnesses and flee away from justice.

 3
Crl.Misc.No.440/2016

Mainly among these grounds, it is prayed to

dismiss the bail petition.

4. Heard the arguments.

5. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:

1) Whether the petitioners have made out

grounds for grant of anticipatory bail?

2) What order?

6. My answer to the above points are :-

Point No.1: In the Affirmative.

Point No.2: As per final order for the

following:

REASONS

7. Point No.:1: The learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Public Prosecutor have argued with

respect to the contention as taken in the bail petition

and objection filed by the prosecution respectively.

8. In brief the case of the prosecution are as under:

The complainant by name Smt.Shashikala is none

other than the wife of accused No.1 Santosh Rathod.

She lodged the complaint against the accused persons

on 07.05.2016.

As per the averments of the complaint, since 17

years back the marriage of the complainant was took

place with the accused No.1 Santosh Rathod and at

 4
Crl.Misc.No.440/2016

the time of marriage gold ornaments and other things

were given to her husband by way of gift. After the

marriage she blessed with three male children. She

and her husband along with her husband were residing

at Hadalasang Tanda No.2. The other two accused

persons namely Maruti and Chandabai (brother-in-law

and mother-in-law) were residing separately adjacent

to their house. Since 4 years the husband of the

complainant addicted to alcohol and he used to illtreat

her both physically and mentally and even after the

advise of panchayatdars he did not heed to their

advise. All the accused persons began to illtreat the

complainant daily without any reasonable cause.

On 04.05.2016 at about 10-30 p.m. the accused

No.1 Santosh Rathod came in a drunken stage to the

house and took quarrel with his wife/complainant and

assaulted her by hands and wooden club and caused

injuries all over her body and thereby the accused

persons have committed the alleged offences.

9. It is seen from the records that except the

averments as stated in the complaint, at this stage,

there is no other material is forthcoming on behalf of

prosecution side in order to show that the accused

No.2 & 3 have committed the alleged offence. It is

seen from the contents of the complaint that there is

no specific overtact has been attributed against the

 5
Crl.Misc.No.440/2016

accused No.2 & 3/petitioner No.2 & 3. Even though the

alleged offence U/Sec.498(A) IPC is non bailable, but

the said offence is not punishable with death or

imprisonment for life.

10. Whether the petitioner No.2 & 3 have committed

the alleged offences or not, the same has to be

thrashed out at the time of trial. Now at this stage, the

merits of the case cannot be gone into. The

prosecution has not produced any documents to show

the bad antecedent of the petitioners. The petitioner

No.2 & 3 are the residents of Hadalsang L.T.No.2 of

Indi taluka. Therefore, the chances of abscond by them

is too remote.

11. On considering the above facts and circumstances

of the case and for the reasons as stated supra, at this

stage, I feel that it is just and reasonable to allow the

bail petition. The apprehension of the prosecution that

if the petitioner No.2 & 3 were released on bail they

will threaten the prosecution witnesses and flee away

from justice could be met by imposing suitable

conditions. Hence, in view of all these reasons I answer

Point No.1 in the affirmative.

12. Point No.2: In view of my reasons as stated in Point

No.1, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER
 6
Crl.Misc.No.440/2016

The bail petition filed by the petitioner No.2 &

3/accused No.2 & 3 U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

The respondent police is directed to release

the petitioner No.2 & 3 on bail in the event of their

arrest in Crime No.91/2016 of Horti police station,

on executing personal bond for `30,000/- each with

one surety for the like sum subject to the following;

Conditions:

1) The petitioner No.2 & 3 shall not tamper or

terrorize the Prosecution witnesses in any
manner.

2) The petitioner No.2 & 3 shall themselves

available to the I.O. for interrogation as and
when required by the I.O.

3) The petitioner No.2 & 3 shall not commit the

similar nature of offences in future.
4) The petitioner NO.2 & 3 shall appear before the
Horti police station on or before 09.07.2016 to
comply with the conditions relating to
executing the bond and furnishing the surety.

If the prosecution feels that any one of the

conditions imposed in this order in any way

violated by the petitioners, the prosecution will be

at liberty to seek cancellation or modification of this

order.
 7
Crl.Misc.No.440/2016

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer,

typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in
the open court on this 2 nd Day of July 2016)

(H.Channegowda)
IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Vijayapura.

Bail Order pronounced in the open court vide

separate order
ORDER

The bail petition filed by the petitioner No.2 &

3/accused No.2 & 3 U/Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
 8
Crl.Misc.No.440/2016

The respondent police is directed to release

the petitioner No.2 & 3 on bail in the event of their
arrest in Crime No.91/2016 of Horti police station,
on executing personal bond for `30,000/- each with
one surety for the like sum subject to the following;
Conditions:

1) The petitioner No.2 & 3 shall not tamper or

terrorize the Prosecution witnesses in any
manner.

2) The petitioner No.2 & 3 shall themselves

available to the I.O. for interrogation as and
when required by the I.O.

3) The petitioner No.2 & 3 shall not commit the

similar nature of offences in future.

4) The petitioner NO.2 & 3 shall appear before the

Horti police station on or before 09.07.2016 to
comply with the conditions relating to
executing the bond and furnishing the surety.

If the prosecution feels that any one of the

conditions imposed in this order in any way
violated by the petitioners, the prosecution will be
at liberty to seek cancellation or modification of this
order.

IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge,

Vijayapura.
9
Crl.Misc.No.440/2016