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. 6156/2018 BETWEEN:
Channakeshava @ Keshava S/o Late Shivanna, Aged about 32 years, R/at 32, 4th E Cross, Behind Akash Treatre, Laggere, Bengaluru - 560058.
(By Sri. M. N. Ningaraja., Adv.,) AND:
State by Rajagopalanagar Police Station, Bangalore City.
By its State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bangalore – 560001.
(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. 1076/2017 registered by Rajagopal Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru and in S.C.No. 523/2018 pending before the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence P/U/S 498(A) and 302 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 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail in Crime No.1076/2017 (S.C. No.523/2018) of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 of IPC pending on the file of LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent – State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the deceased- Shobha was legally wedded to the accused about 9 years back. The accused was addicted to alcohol and he used to harass the deceased both physically and mentally for demand of money. The deceased was working in Garments and she left the job and has received as a Provident Fund to the extent of Rupees One Lakh. When she failed to pay the said Provident Fund to the petitioner/accused. On 09.12.2017, he came to the house by consuming alcohol and picked up quarrel. With an intention to kill, poured the kerosene on her and set her ablaze. As a result of the same, she died because of the injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that one Poornima, informed the complainant about the alleged incident, who has not been cited as witness in the charge sheet. Further it is submitted that it is one Suresh, who was also present when the complainant had been to the place of the incident. He has not been examined by the Investigating Officer. There are no eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and there is no consistency with regard to the material, which has been produced. Further it is submitted that already the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner/accused has falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the petitioner/accused is not required for the purpose of investigation or interrogation. He is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the CWs.8 and 9 are the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident. When the alleged incident was going on, CW.8 went and pacified the galata. Even though he has warned the accused immediately, within a short span of time, he heard a screaming voice. When he went and saw, the deceased was ablazed and smoke was coming out of the house. It is further submitted that the accused was also present at the time of alleged incident, which has taken place in the house. Further it is submitted that the petitioner/accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased both physically and mentally for demand of Provident Fund to the extent of Rupees One Lakh, which has been received after she left the job. It is submitted that the petitioner/accused has seriously involved in the alleged crime. There is ample material to connect the petitioner/accused to the alleged incident. 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 close reading of the contents of the complaint and other materials, some prima-facie material appears against the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused being the husband of the deceased, he used to pick up the quarrel with his wife. On the date of alleged incident, he poured Kerosene and set her ablaze from which, the deceased sustained burn injuries. Though during the course of arguments, it has been submitted that it is a suicidal death, but no material has been produced to prove the same. There is ample material to connect the petitioner/accused in the alleged crime. Under the said facts and circumstance, the petitioner/accused has not made out a case to release him on bail. Hence, petition is dismissed.
sd/- JUDGE VBS