IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6231/2018 BETWEEN:
Ashwini @ Mamatha, Aged about 25 years, W/o. Jayaraj, R/at Kukkuda Katte, Mudukonaje Village, Padu Konaje, Mangaluru Taluk, D.K. District – 574 227.
(By Sri. P. Karunakar, Advocate) AND:
The State by Moodabidare Police, Represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 560 001.
(By Sri. M. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.301/2016 of Moodabidre Police Station, Mangaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R This petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail in Crime No.301/2016 of Moodabidre Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that a missing complaint was registered by the petitioner/accused No.2 on 16.09.2016 stating that her husband was missing form 13.09.2016 at about 12.30 p.m. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the brother-in-law gave one more requisition to the jurisdictional police suspecting the kidnap of the deceased. The police investigated the case and arrested four persons including accused No.2. Later it reveled that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit relationship. As the deceased - husband is an obstacle, with an intention to eliminate him they conspired and called accused No.1 to the house of accused No.2. There, they have assaulted with Rod and committed murder and thereafter, they shifted the body and screened the offences/evidence.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that already accused Nos.3 and 4 have been released on bail. No serious overt-acts have been alleged as against the petitioner/accused No.2 as the petitioner/accused No.2 being women, she is also entitled to be released on bail. It is further submitted that only the allegation which has been made against the petitioner/accused No.2 is that she has conspired with other accused persons and she also screened the evidence by wiping the floor and other materials. It is further submitted that now the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner/accused No.2 is not required for the purpose of further investigation or interrogation. It is submitted that the petitioner/accused No.2 is having a small child and the trial may take some more time. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused No.2 on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the materials produced clearly and prima-facie shows that the present petitioner/accused No.2 was having illicit relationship with accused No.1 as such, the deceased was a hindrance to the illicit activities. In that regard, accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with an intention to eliminate the deceased and accused No.2 called accused No.1 to her house. When the deceased came, accused No.1 assaulted with Rod and caused the death of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is prima- facie material for having involved the present petitioner/accused No.2 in commission of the alleged offences. Further it is submitted that already the petitioner/accused No.2 has approached this Court and this Court by considering all the materials, has dismissed the petition on 10.11.2017. There are no new circumstances to entertain the bail petition. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On careful consideration of the material, it indicates that this Court after considering the factual situation and the involvement of the petitioner/accused No.2 in the alleged crime, has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has made out a case about the involvement of the present petitioner/accused No.2 in committing the alleged offences and concluded that it is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner/accused No.2 and the petition was came to be dismissed. The only changed circumstance that the petitioner/accused No.2 is urging is that, since two years, the trial has not yet commenced and the petitioner/accused No.2 is languishing in jail. Merely, there is delay in commencing the trial, it will not be a changed circumstance to interfere with the order of this Court or to revive the said order. Without expressing anything on merits of the case, I feel that the petitioner/accused No.2 has not made out any good grounds. Hence, petition is dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of order of this Court.
VBS Sd/- JUDGE