IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8686/2017 BETWEEN:
DEVARAJA @ KARIYAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O HUCHAIAH R/AT RAJANABILAGULI VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 107.
(BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADV.) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.) ... PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.47/2017 OF BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498(A), 302, 201 AND 306 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM COURT, PERIYAPATNA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC registered in respondent – police station Crime No.47/2017 and after completing investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 306 of IPC. But the charge sheet came to be abated as against accused No.2.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring the contents of the complaint lodged by the own brother of the deceased Kusuma so also referring the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses - CWs.4 and 5 made the submission that firstly there is a delay of 20 days in lodging the complaint, which is not properly explained by the prosecution. Learned counsel further made the submission that even looking to the contents of the complaint, there was a petty quarrel between Kusuma and the present petitioner. He also made the submission that there are no materials to show that the petitioner abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He further submitted that from the date of the arrest of the petitioner, he is in judicial custody. Completion of trial may take some more time. Now, the investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed. By imposing reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that the death of Kusuma and her two daughters is unnatural. Therefore, being a husband it is his duty to inform the police about the incident, which is not done in the present case. He also made the submission that as Kusuma had two daughters and she was not having male issue, the petitioner picked up quarrel with her, abused her and told her that he was going to marry another girl and told her that she can go and die. Learned High Court Government Pleader further made the submission that the present petitioner is also responsible for screening evidence in the matter. After the alleged incident, the petitioner burnt all three bodies even before conducting postmortem examination. Therefore, there was no opportunity to conduct postmortem examination to know the cause of death. Hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet materials.
6. Looking to the charge sheet materials, there is a prima facie case as against the present petitioner about his involvement in committing the alleged offences. No doubt, there was a delay in filing the complaint. The petitioner is also responsible for the alleged incident because being a husband of Kusuma, it is his duty to inform the same to the police. If according to him, it was a case of suicide and he has not abetted the deceased to commit suicide, he should have given complaint about the incident, which has not been done in this case. It is also the case of the prosecution that immediately after the incident, all three dead bodies were burnt before conducting postmortem examination. Looking into these materials on record, it is not a case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE SA