IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10091 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
G.K.GOWDA, S/O KENCHAHONAIAH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT GURUVANAHALLI VILLAGE, GONABELE DAKHLE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK – 562 123. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE, NELAMANGALA – 562 123, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHETHAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.310/2015 (SPL.C.NO.23/2016) OF NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(2)(5) OF SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT AND SECTIONS 302, 201, 364, 397 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This is a second successive bail application as the petitioner in this bail application. Earlier to this, petition in Crl.P.No.7962/2016 before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.2016 and another petition in Crl.P.No.4114/2017 was also came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 02.08.2017.
2. Before adverting on the aspects relating to the registration of the criminal case and submission of the final reports, it is necessary to mention the facts in the case, according to the prosecution are not presented in a chronological manner and the co-relation of previous fact to the subsequent one. In so far as this case is concerned, it is in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302 of one married lady, Netravathi, Wife of Ramakrishnaiah. Netravathi and Ramakrishnaiah were married in the year 2012 and out of their wedlock, they have a child by name, Keerthana. Netravathi is the daughter of the complainant. The accused person is not related to the family of Netravathi but had illicit relationship with her and this strained her marital relationship. The complaint, in the beginning came to be lodged as missing of Netravathi by her father. The said complaint stated that her daughter was not seen on the day previous to going out of the family. She had received a phone call by one Prathamgowda. The said complaint came to be lodged on 26.10.2015. Further, the case that was registered came to be the one charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 397, 364 of IPC and 3 CL 2(5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The reason for filing the final report is reflected in column No.7 of the final report, wherein it is stated that the accused G.K.Gowda, who had affairs with Netravathi, got enraged when Netravathi stopped the extra marital affairs with him. However, the accused was pressing and pressuring Netravathi to continue the extra marital affairs and this aggravated the situation between them. This made the accused G.K.Gowda to decide to eliminate Netravathi who refused to accommodate him for the illicit affairs. It is stated that the accused person caused her murder.
4. Insofar as the disposal of the bail applications are concerned, the first application was filed before this Court by the accused in Crl.P.No.7962/2016, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.2016. However, the Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial, frame the charge and commence trial within two months. Another bail application was filed in Crl.P.No.4114/2017, wherein the petitioner had requested the Court to grant him liberty to renew his prayer for bail if the trial is not concluded within 3 months. On 2.8.2017, this Court considered the submission and directed the learned Trial Judge to disposed of the trial as under:
“The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. The Investigating Officer/Police Inspector of the respondent – Police Station is hereby directed to produce the accused before the Trial Court promptly on all dates of hearing, in the light of the High Court circular No.LCA I/478/93 in General Circular No.11/1993 dated 21.7.1993. Trial Court is directed to take suitable action for non- production of the accused.”
5. Sri.Hasmath Pasha, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter is still pending. The witnesses have turned hostile to the prosecution. The petitioner is in the judicial custody as an under trial prisoner. He was remanded to judicial custody from 3.11.2015. He further submitted that the investigation and even the trial is complete and as many as 6 witnesses have been examined. Therefore, he submitted to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Insofar as the hostility of the witnesses to the prosecution and discrepancies are concerned, it is for the Trial Court to consider and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. However, it is seen that the first application for bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.11.2016 and the second application was disposed of on 2.8.2017. Thus, the second order was passed after commencement of the trial. This is the third phase of application. The petitioner is said to be in judicial custody. In the circumstances, there is no allegation against the petitioner regarding his interference in the investigation. There is no authenticated version regarding the absence of details in the missing complaint in Crime No.310/2015 and the arresting of the accused. Thus in the context of circumstances, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution or its case if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner/accused is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 397, 364 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered in Crime No.310/2015, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner has to execute a personal bond for `2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) and has to furnish one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) He shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
(iii) He has to appear before the concerned Court on every hearing date without fail except in extraordinary circumstances.
(iv) The benefit granted under this order stands cancelled.
Sd/- JUDGE DH/AHB