IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
J.M. Khazi, J.
Uma Maheshwari B. & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 100402 of 2023
Decided On : 09-03-2023
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 109 R/W Section 34 of I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought bail for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 109 R/W Section 34 of I.P.C. They claimed innocence and alleged false implication due to a family dispute involving allegations of assault and black magic.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the incident occurred due to a family dispute and that the major portion of the investigation was completed. Considering the nature of the allegations and the time elapsed since the incident, the Court granted bail to accused Nos.1 and 2 with stringent conditions.
Issues: Allegations of assault and black magic within a family dispute, completion of major portion of investigation, and entitlement to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the completion of the investigation, nature of allegations, and time elapsed to determine the entitlement to bail.
Final Decision: The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 were released on bail with stringent conditions.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
J.M. Khazi, J. - The petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') seeking bail in Crime No.260/2022 of Gangavathi Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 504, 109 R/W Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the I.P.C.').
2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have contended that they are innocent of the offences alleged and that they have been falsely implicated. The allegations against them are that at the instigation of accused Nos.3 and 4, they assaulted the victim-Manjula who is no other than the mother of accused No.1. The complaint is based on the information given by Rakshita, another daughter of the complainant. Accused are arrested on 25.12.2022 and then they are in judicial custody. Already investigation is completed and no longer the presence of accused No.1 and 2 is required for further investigation. The accused are ready to abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed and prays to allow the petition.
3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted oral objections contending that complainant-Srinivasalu B., accused No.3-Krishna @ Kitti and accused No.4-Chandrashekhar are brothers. The complainant is having four children by name Shwetha, accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari, Karthik and Rakshita. The injured Manjula is the wife of the complainant. Since childhood, two children of the complainant namely accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari and Karthik are living with accused No.2 and 3 i.e. their paternal junior uncle and aunt and there used to quarrel between these persons on the allegations that the injured Manjula, the mother of accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari and Karthik is indulged in black magic and alleging that she is responsible for the failure for alliance which was sent for accused No.1, accused No.2 assaulted Manjula with machchu (chopper) and caused bleeding injuries. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are arrested on 25.12.2022.
4. Accused No.4 is granted bail. However, accused No.3 is absconding. Though the injured Manjula is discharged from the hospital, the injury certificate reveal that she has sustained 11 injuries, out of which injury Nos.6 to 8 are grievous in nature. The presence of accused No.3 is to be secured yet and prays to reject the petition.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. From the complaint averments, it is evident that complainant-Srinivasalu B., accused No.3-Krishna @ Kitti, accused No.4-Chandrashekhar are brothers. The complainant and his wife-Munjula who is injured are having four children viz., Shwetha, accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari, Karthik and Rakshitha. It is stated in the complaint that accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari and Karthik are living with accused Nos.2 and 3 who are their junior uncle and aunt and there are allegations that injured Manjula-natural mother of accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari and Karthik is indulged in black magic and there used to frequent quarrel between them. It is also alleged that marriage talks were going on in respect of the marriage of accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari and due to the false allegations made by Manjula the said alliance could not be went through.
7. In this background, it is alleged that on 24.12.2022 accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari, accused No.2-Vanajakshi @ B. Laxmi assaulted the injured Manjula. On the information furnished by his another daughter, complainant reached the spot and found injured Manjula being assaulted by accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari and accused No.2- Vanajakshi @ B. Laxmi. The main allegations are against accused No.1-Uma Maheshwari that she was assaulting the injured with Machchu whereas accused No.2-Vanajakshi @ B. Laxmi was kicking her with legs.
8. The incident is dated 24.12.2022. Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are arrested on 25.12.2022. Already recovery of the weapon of offence used is made. Accused No.4 is granted bail. Having regard to the fact that the incident is dated 24.12.2022, it w
Entitlement to bail based on completion of investigation and nature of allegations.
The court grants bail due to lack of serious evidence and the applicants' health condition, ensuring conditions to prevent interference with the investigation.
Regular bail may be granted even in serious offenses if the investigation is substantially complete, recovery is effected, and the accused has no prior criminal history.
Bail granted considering detention period, non-grievous injuries, and advanced investigation stage despite serious assault allegations.
The court ruled that absence of serious allegations and completion of investigations justifies granting bail under stipulated conditions.
Bail granted where insufficient evidence exists for continued detention of accused.
The court can grant bail based on the nature of allegations, evidence, and the accused's previous criminal record.
The court determined bail eligibility based on insufficient evidence against the applicants and the de-facto complainant's affidavit supporting bail.
Court held that when the investigation is complete and recovery effected, continued detention of the accused is not required and bail may be granted.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.