KOTRESHI, MANJUNATHA AND ERANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

(2.) THE petitioners are said to be the brothers -in -law of one, Neelavva. Neelavva was said to have been married to the brother of the petitioners, namely, one Rajashekar. It appears, the family of the petitioners had compelled Neelavva to obtain a loan of Rs. 25,000/ - and thereafter, they had not repaid the loan. When Neelavva is said to have protested that the interest on the loan was accruing and that she had to repay the same to the person from whom she had borrowed the money, it transpires that there was a quarrel and she had been set on fire. This is stated in her complaint when she was under treatment for burn injuries, suffered at the incident. At that point of time, she is said to have implicated the petitioners, as well, of having tortured her and having refused to repay the money. It is on the basis of the said complaint and on the death of Neelavva, after she succumbed to the injuries, that the police have arrested the petitioners accusing them of offences punishable under Sections 498 -A and 304 -B of IPC. The petitioners having approached the court below seeking bail, the court though has found that an offence punishable under Section 304 -B may not have been made out, but yet found from the police diary that Neelavva had made categorical statements about the involvement of the petitioners and therefore, thought it fit to deny bail, notwithstanding, that though the offences are non -bailable but are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the alleged circumstances did not warrant grant of bail.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , the petitioners have made out a case for enlarging them on bail.