Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Kum Varshini vs State Of Karnataka By Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station

High Court Of Karnataka|16 July, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3606/2019 Between:
Kum. Varshini, D/o Harish, Aged about 21 years, R/at No.15, 4th Main, 9th Cross, Jagajyothi Layout, Jnanabharathi, Bengaluru – 560 059. … Petitioner (By Sri C.H. Hanumantharaya, Advocate) And:
State of Karnataka by Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City, Now investigated by CCB, Bengaluru, Represented by (State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building Complex, Bengaluru – 560 001). … Respondent (By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.60/2019 of Mahalakshmipuram Police Station, Bangalore for the offences p/u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 r/w 149 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 her detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.60/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 and 149 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint had been lodged on 7.3.2019 by Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station alleging the commission of offences aforestated. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR is registered and investigation is in progress.
3. The case that is made out in the complaint is that the complaint filed by the wife of deceased is that the deceased had gone out of the house on 7.3.2019 at 9.00 a.m. and asked that the vehicle be sent. At about 12.45 p.m., the complainant’s father-in-law informed the wife of deceased that her husband has been done to death by unknown persons. On the basis of the complaint, FIR was registered against unknown persons with respect to the aforesaid offences.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State submits that the investigation is at an advanced stage and that sanction has been obtained for invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that admittedly, as on 7.3.2019 when the offence is stated to have been committed, the petitioner was in London. It is stated that the petitioner came back to India on 11.03.2019 and was arrested immediately. It is stated that the question of proof of offence by the petitioner is a matter that is to be proved during trial. Hence, the question of involvement of the petitioner either by way of conspiracy or abetment to commit the crime is a matter to be proved during trial.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would abide by any terms and conditions that would be imposed by this Court and would co-operate with the Investigating Authority in trial.
7. Learned Government Pleader states that the provisions of the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000, as such, is sought to be invoked and relies on the report of the Commissioner of Police dated 28.05.2019.
8. However, it is to be noted that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the question of applicability of the said Act, prima facie, cannot be extended, as the report is essentially as against the other accused.
9. Further, it is to be noted that insofar as the proof of offence, is a matter for trial. Admittedly, the petitioner was not in the country as on the date of offence. The proof of the offence is on the basis of circumstantial and other evidence.
10. The petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2019. It is stated by learned Government Pleader that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is complete.
11. Taking note of the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Insofar as the apprehension of the prosecution that the petitioner may flee from the country, the said apprehension can be addressed by imposing the necessary conditions.
12. 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 with respect to proceedings in Crime No.60/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 427, 302 and 149 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 surrender her passport before Investigating Officer within three days of her release from the custody.
(iii) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Court without prior permission.
(iv) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(v) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(vi) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vii) 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
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kum Varshini vs State Of Karnataka By Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
16 July, 2019
Judges
  • S Sunil Dutt Yadav