IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY CRIMINAL PETITION No.3210 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Mr. Naveen Narayan @ Navin Narayan B.T S/o. B.T.Thimmegowda, Aged about 38 years, R/at No.156, 1st Stage, 3rd Block, 7th Cross, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru-560 072. …Petitioner (By Sri. Rakshit K.N. Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Kunigal Police Station, Kunigal, Tumkur District – 572 130. Rep. by SPP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560 001. …Respondent (By Sri. Divakar Maddur, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.95/2019 of Kunigal Police Station, Tumakuru District for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following :
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the materials placed before the Court.
2. The present petitioner is the husband of the complainant Smt.Asha C.S. The said complainant in her complaint has stated that she was given in marriage to the petitioner on 18.6.2018. However, soon after her marriage, the accused and his family members started subjecting her to harassment and assaulting her on trivial matters. In that regard, she had lodged a complaint against those people before Chandra Layout Police Station on 15.3.2019, which police had summoned them and got a written undertaking by them about their proper conduct with respect to the complainant. According to the complainant, even thereafter, the accused intensified their harassment against her and were demanding a cash of `50 lakhs to be brought by her from her parents’ house. In that regard, on 20.4.2019, while she along with her husband i.e., the present petitioner, returning in a car from Dharmastala to Bengaluru, the accused started quarrelling with her while driving the car. While they were near Kunigal village on National Highway-75 Bypass, the petitioner/accused with an intention to kill her, took out an iron rod that was kept in the car and attempted to assault her. Though she could avoid the first attack made by her husband, but, his second attack inflicted bleeding injury on her forehead. Despite she pleading to stop the car and yelling for help, he did not stop. However, her continued yelling seeking for help invoked the response by a rider of a motorcycle on the same road, who made that car to stop and noticed that the complainant had sustained bleeding injuries.
He took the injured complainant in the same car to a nearby hospital and got her medically treated. The complainant has stated that because of the alleged treatment, there was some delay in lodging the complaint, which complaint was filed on 21.4.2019. The same was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that a reading of the complaint in its entirety no where shows that the complainant has alleged any intention on the part of the accused of committing her murder. Learned counsel also stated that an attempt to strangulate by a co-passenger in a car while the accused was driving the car is impracticable. Even if it is taken as an attempt to assault or an act of assault which was practiced in a car, but, the same is due to sudden and grave provocation instigated by the complainant herself. The learned counsel further submitted that the complainant who claims herself to be an injured was relieved/discharged from the hospital on the same day i.e., on 20.4.2019 itself and after which, she came to her husband’s house, wherein some negotiations took place. It is only after the failure of the said negotiation, the complainant has proceeded to lodge a false complaint against her husband. Stating that the accused being an innocent person, has not even attempted to abscond, learned counsel prays for his enlargement on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments submitted that the alleged intention cannot be decided or adjudicated at the stage of disposal of a petition for seeking the relief of bail. An attempt to commit strangulation while driving the car though is said to be difficult to practice, but, it is not impossible.
Learned High Court Government Pleader further submits that, at the same time, inflicting bleeding injury on the forehead of the complainant which is a vital part on the person of the complainant, that too, while it was the accused alone who was the other passenger in the car, can give more answer than what is expected to show that the alleged act has happened in the manner as narrated by the complainant in her complaint.
5. The complainant is admittedly the wife of the present petitioner/accused, who has stated that her marriage with the present petitioner was performed very recently i.e., on 18.6.2018, which is less than an year from today. She has stated in her complaint that immediately after marriage, she was subjected to constant harassment in her matrimonial home not only by the accused, but, by other inmates of the house. She has given the details of the harassment, including the one that they were pestering her to get an additional amount of `50 lakhs from her parents’ house. According to the complainant, it was only her husband who was a co-passenger in the car and it was he who was driving the car. Though she has stated that he attempted to commit her murder by strangulating her, but, she also stated that he failed in his attempt. She further stated that, thereafter he took out an iron rod which was kept in the car and assaulted her. The complainant also says that it was a passerby on the road who was going on a motorcycle, came to her rescue and got her medical treatment. When the complaint is taken on its facial value and at this stage though it may not be possible to immediately deduce that there was an attempt to commit the crime, but, it cannot be brushed aside that it was an act of assault, that too, by using an instrument like iron rod which is said to have been kept in the car.
6. Furthermore, according to the prosecution, the investigation is said to be still in progress and the enlargement of the accused/petitioner on bail is apprehended as a deterrent to the smooth investigation. The said apprehension expressed by the prosecution cannot be brushed aside at this stage. As such, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Accordingly, the Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bk/