IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION No.9702/2018 BETWEEN:
MOHAN @ MOHAN KUMAR S/O KUTTI PADDU KUNDER, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.1-210, MATHRUSHREE, YENNEGENI, KILPADY VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK-574 201.
.. PETITIONER (BY SRI VIKAS M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DHANANJAYKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MULKI POLICE, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.
.. RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP;SRI. S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY, ADV. FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT- ABSENT) *** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.135/2018 OF MULKI POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 354, 302 AND 201 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner/ accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No.135/2018 of Mulki Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 302 and 201 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that the petitioner/accused assured the deceased in getting her a job in MRPL and he asked her to give her resume on 31.10.2018. The deceased took a print out of the resume and at 5.58PM she went to the house of the petitioner/accused to give her resume. At that time, the petitioner/accused with an intention to out rage her modesty, pulled and dragged the deceased, to which she opposed. Immediately, the petitioner/accused pushed her to an open well and thereby committed the alleged offences. On the basis of the complaint, a case came to be registered.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the entire case rest on circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. He further submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case. The case of the prosecution rests only on theory of last seen, but it is also not substantiated by any material. He further submitted that the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner/accused is not required for the purpose of further investigation. He submitted that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed on him by this Court and ready to offer surety. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner/accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently argued and submitted that the petitioner/accused asked the deceased to give resume and when she had gone to give resume, at that time, the petitioner/accused tried to outrage her modesty. The deceased resisted his attempt. The petitioner/accused pulled her into an open well and thereby committed the alleged offences. He further submitted that there are witnesses for having seen lastly the petitioner/accused and the deceased were together. He further submitted that the Complainant and others were in search of the deceased and when they were proceeding towards well, the petitioner/accused avoided them to go towards well. He further submitted that along with clothes of the deceased, her resume was also found in the well. He further submitted that there are circumstance to implicate the petitioner/accused to the said crime. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records.
7. On close reading of the contents of the complaint and other material it is clear that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence and there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The only circumstance which has been asserted is that before going to give the resume the deceased has called the daughter of the Complainant and informed that she has taken print out and she is proceeding towards the house of the petitioner/accused. The petitioner/accused and the Complainant were last seen by the witness in this case. Even the conduct of the petitioner/accused to the effect that when the Complainant and others were searching and they went near the open well, he avoided them going towards open well and asked them to go in different way. Thereby the petitioner/accused tried to interfere in searching the body and misguided them. All these circumstances together looked in toto, it appears that there is prima facie case made out as against the petitioner/accused.
8. In view of the discussions made above, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Vk