IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3558/2019 Between:
Jayanna M.K., S/o Manjegowda, Aged about 30 years, R/at Kurubarahalli Village, Marle Post, Chikkamangalur Taluk, Chikkamangalur District – 577 101. … Petitioner (By Sri Pratheep K.C., Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Chikkamangalur Rural Police, Chikkamangalur District, Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.357/2018 of Chikkamagaluru Rural Police Station, Chikkamagaluru for the offences p/u/s 302 and 201 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.357/2018 (S.C.No.34/2019) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution as is made out in the complaint is that the father of the deceased, who is the complainant has stated that his daughter was given in marriage to one Pradeepa and from the wedlock there are two children. It is further stated that there were certain matrimonial disputes and there was a panchayath previously, which had attempted to settle the issue. However, as there was no possibility of reconciliation the deceased and her husband were staying separately. It is stated that on 08.11.2018 the husband of the deceased had come to the deceased’s house and assaulted the deceased and had done her to death. On the basis of the complaint filed, FIR came to be lodged. After investigation, when charge sheet was filed, the case against the husband of the deceased Pradeepa was not made out and he was been dropped from the array of accused and the petitioner is sought to be implicated and arrayed as a prime accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the complaint would reveal that information was given by the children Teju and Shoba and that the said children had seen the commission of offence. However, 161 statement of the said witnesses has a different version and it is stated that the petitioner had an altercation with the deceased and same night at later point of time the deceased was found dead. The said version of the witnesses referred to in the complaint and in the 161 statement, prima facie are at variance. Further, the post mortem report states that cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging. However, it is pointed out that the above fact does not support the case as made out in the charge sheet. However, it would not be appropriate to evaluate the evidence or comment regarding the probability of occurrence of offences. Even if the statement of witnesses CW-9 and CW-10 is taken to be true, the said version is not free from contradiction with the version as made out in the complaint.
4. It is also to be noted that even as per the version as made out in the Section 161 statement, the children have not witnessed the commission of crime. The proof of the offence as made out against the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in the charge sheet is a matter for trial.
5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that different version is sought to be made out in the charge sheet only to prevent the implication of husband of the deceased, is an aspect that has some force which can be taken note of for the limited purpose of the present proceedings. Further it is also to be noted that the investigation is complete and charge is filed and the present proceedings cannot be treated to be punitive in nature. Accordingly, taking note of the above said facts, a case is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail.
6. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.357/2018 (S.C.No.34/2019) 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) 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.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR