IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.5727/2019 BETWEEN:
Sathyaraju, S/o Kaliya Perumal, Aged about 23 years, R/at No.8/1, 20th Main, 19th Cross, Rajagopalareddy Layout, J.P. Nagar V Phase, Bangalore – 560 078. ... Petitioner (By Sri. N. Nandan, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Puttenahalli Police Station, Bangalore City at Bangalore (Rep. by Public Prosecutor) High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001. ... Respondent (By Sri Vinayaka V.S., HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.150/2018 (S.C. No.6/2019) registered by Puttenahalli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences p/u/s 302, 201, 316 and 498(A) of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner who is the sole accused is seeking to be enlarged on bail pursuant to his detention in Crime No.150/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The case that is made out by the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged on 10.07.2018 by the Police Sub-inspector, Puttenahalli P.S. alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. It is further made out that the petitioner had gone to the market on 01.05.2018 and when he came back, he found that his wife was missing. The petitioner himself lodged a complaint. The investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2018. It comes out from the material on record that there are no eyewitnesses who have witnessed the commission of offence. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The inquest proceedings were conducted on 10.07.2018. It is submitted that postmortem is stated to have been conduced on 11.07.2018.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner would point out that the spot mahazar during which the skeleton of the deceased is said to have been seized is on 13.07.2018. It is also contended that the place where the skeleton of the deceased is stated to have been found was pointed out by the father of the deceased. He further contends that in the absence of any evidence incriminating the petitioner and that the scientific report as to the skeleton belonging to the deceased is still pending, at this stage, continuation of detention would be punitive in nature.
4. The learned HCGP appearing on behalf of the prosecution submits that the offence is heinous and that there is material to implicate the petitioner.
5. Taking note that the material available would only make out case if at all on circumstantial evidence, the charge sheet has been filed after investigation, there is no eyewitness who have witnessed the commission of offence, the report relating to the skeleton being that of the deceased is still awaited, the question of petitioner absconding can be addressed by imposing necessary conditions. The witnesses are close relatives of the deceased. The petitioner admittedly does not have any criminal antecedents. The statements of the witnesses do not make out any allegation regarding dowry harassment. Looking into the nature of witnesses who have been arrayed (witnesses are relatives), the question of tampering or threatening can also be made good by imposing necessary conditions. Taking note that the proceedings relating to bail cannot be treated to be punitive in nature and also noticing the time spent in the custody by the petitioner, by looking into other materials on record, the petitioner has made out a case to be enlarged on bail.
6. Taking note of the contentions of the petitioner, proof of offence is a matter to be proved during trial. The Sessions Court has only observed regarding grievousness of the offences and rejected the application noting that prima-facie case has been made out.
7. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.150/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) The petitioner shall physically present himself and mark his attendance before the concerned SHO once in month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.
(vi) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Np/-
Sd/- JUDGE