IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.766/2019 BETWEEN :
Smt. Marakka W/o late Shankarappa Aged about 36 years R/at Bheemapura Village Hanumanahalli Post Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District.
(By Sri H.C.Manjunatha, Advocate) AND :
The State of Karnataka by Mulbagal Rural Police Station Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., 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.194/2018 of Mulbagal Rural Police Station, Kolar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, 2012.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R The present petition is filed by accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release her on bail in SC.No.163/2018, arising out of Crime No.194/2018 of Mulbagal Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent- State.
3. The gist of the complaint is that on 24.6.2018 at about 3.00 p.m., somebody informed that there was a dead body of female and the said body was burnt and it may be aged about 20-22 years. On the basis of silver leg chains, nose stud and other articles, they identified and came to know that some miscreants have committed the murder and burnt the body. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, accused Nos.1 to 3 were apprehended and the voluntary statement has been recorded and they confessed that accused Nos.1 and 2 were having illicit relationship and accused No.1 has raped the deceased and she became pregnant. However, accused No.1 was responsible for the same. In that context, on 23.6.2018 they took the deceased in the car and thereafter, strangulated with whale(Dupaatta) and committed the murder of the deceased and with an intention to screen the evidence, they took her body in the car and thereafter, they burnt the body. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused no.2 that the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The name of the petitioner is not found in the complaint. He further submitted that only on the basis of the voluntary statement of accused No.1, name of the petitioner-accused No.2 has been implicated. He further submitted that the only allegation which has been made as against the petitioner-accused No.2 is that she tried to put kerchief in the mouth of the deceased, but the same was resisted and thereafter accused No.1 strangulated the deceased with whale and it is because of the act of accused No.1, deceased died. He further submitted that the petitioner being a woman, under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. she is entitled to be released on bail. Petitioner is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and release the petitioner on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned HCGP vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 being the step mother of the deceased was present at the place of incident and CW.27 who has come to the spot has clearly deposed about the presence of accused No.2 immediately after the alleged incident. She further submitted that the petitioner is also charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 120 of IPC and she is also equally liable to be punished if she has participated in screening the offence. There is prima facie material to show that the petitioner-accused No.2 is involved in a serious offence which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. She further submitted that the petitioner has given an extra judicial confession and even the said confession shows the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. On these grounds, she prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the charge sheet material it indicates that there was an animosity between accused Nos.1, 2 and the deceased. Other material also clearly goes to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 came near Mulbagal Bus Stand in a car bearing Regn.No.KA-53-C- 0229 and took the deceased in the said car and thereafter they made her to have panipuri and at about 9.30 p.m., they went near Vaniganahalli, where accused No.2 tried to smother the deceased by using kerchief and accused No.1 by taking the whale tied to the neck of the deceased and committed the murder of the deceased. On close reading of records it would indicate that it is accused No.1 who tied the whale to the neck of the deceased and committed the murder of the deceased. The only allegation as against the petitioner-accused No.2 is that she tried to smother the deceased by using the kerchief. Though it is alleged that CWs.27 and 28 were asked to bring the tractor to help the accused to take out the car out of silt, the statement was recorded on a longer gap i.e., on 28.8.2018. When there is no specific overt act alleged as against the petitioner- accused No.2 and when there is direct material to show that because of the act of accused No.1 deceased died, then under such facts and circumstances, I feel that by imposing some stringent conditions, if the petitioner- accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail, it would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed and accused No.2-petitioner herein is enlarged on bail in SC.No.163/2018, arising out of Crime No.194/2018 of Mulbagal Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act, subject to the following conditions:-
i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
ii) She shall be regular in appearing before the trial Court till the trial is completed.
iii) She shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.
iv) She shall mark her attendance before the jurisdictional police once in fifteen days between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. till the trial is concluded.
Sd/- JUDGE *ck/-