\IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7403/2017 BETWEEN:
Smt.Parvathi @ Parvathamma W/o Gopal Aged about 43 years, R/at K.Hosakoppalu, Hassan – 572 301. ... Petitioner (By Sri.Pratheep K.C, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka Rep by Pension Mohalla Police Hassan District.
Rep by its State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.149/2016 of Pension Mohalla Police Station, Hassan and in S.C.No.35/2017 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan for the offence P/U/S 302, 392, 328 and 201 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 328, 302, 201, 392 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.149/2016 and now pending in S.C.No.35/2017 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Hassan.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.2 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. The counsel for the petitioner / accused No.2 made submission that there are no eye witness to the incident. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The only circumstance as against the present petitioner alleged is the voluntary statement of accused No.1 wherein accused No.1 took the name of the present petitioner also. The learned counsel submitted that except the statement of CW19 there is no other material as against the present petitioner. Hence, he made submission that there is no prima facie case and the petitioner is a women is ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader made submission that there is a recovery of jewellery articles at the instance of accused No.1. The learned HCGP also submitted that the statement of accused No.1 is the basis for accused No.2. Hence, he made submission that there is prima facie case as against the present petitioner / accused No.2 and she is not entitled for grant of bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and the statement of witness produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Looking to the material and even admittedly according to the prosecution there are no direct witness to the incident. The case of the prosecution rests on the circumstantial evidence. The recovery of the articles as relied upon by the prosecution is at the instance of accused No.1. So far as accused No.2 who is the petitioner herein, arrayed in the case based on the voluntary statement of accused No.1.
7. The petitioner has contended that there is a false implication and she is innocent and not committed the alleged offence and she has undertaken to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, the petition is allowed.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
Petitioner/accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offence punishable under Sections 328, 302, 201, 392 read with Section 34 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.149/2016 subject to the following conditions:
i. Petitioner has to execute a personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- and has to furnish one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
ii. Petitioner shall not tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or indirectly.
iii. Petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/- JUDGE UN