IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.2264/2019 Between:
Smt. R. K. Rumeeladevi W/o. Kaidhom Irabooth Singh Aged about 37 years, R/at No. 135, 1st Cross, 1st Floor, Munivenkatappa Building, 2nd Main, 3rd Cross, Singaianapalya, Bengaluru. Permanent address Nafath Maiyee Lakai Village, Mairang Sub-Division, Bishnapura District, Manipura State – 795 133.
(By Sri. Dilraj Rohit Sequeira, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Mahadevapura Police Station, Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore 560 001.
(By Sri. K. P. Yoganna, HCGP) … Petitioner … Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.483/2018 pertaining to the Mahadevapura Police Station, registered as S.C.No.238/2019, pending on the file of the Hon’ble Court of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-61) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER The petitioner-accused is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with her detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.483/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is said to have an illicit affair with the petitioner and was frequently visiting the house of the petitioner. That on 3.9.2018 at about 10.30 a.m., when the petitioner was alone at home, it is stated that the deceased came to her house and prevented her from going to work and at that point of time, there was an altercation. It is stated that the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the deceased and strangulated him and done him to death. It is noticed that the investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 03.10.2018 and has given birth to a child during the period of detention and the child is one month old.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no eye-witness as such. It is only after the alleged incident that the complainant had come near the house and went into the house and saw the deceased.
4. It is contended that taking note of the fact that the petitioner has given birth to a child which is one month old and noting that the investigation is complete, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State contends that voluntary statement was recorded on 03.10.2018 which prima facie indicates the involvement of the petitioner.
6. Though such voluntary statement is a matter to be proved during trial, it comes out from the said statement recorded by the prosecution that the petitioner is also injured. It is contended by the petitioner that if the version of the statement made by the police is to be accepted, the petitioner has done it in exercise of right of private defence. However, the commission of offence is a matter that rests on evidence to be adduced during trial. It is to be noted that there is no direct eye-witness though there is circumstantial evidence. The question as to commission of crime, is a matter to be proved during trial. The exercise of right of private defence which is sought to be made out is also a matter to be proved during trial.
7. Taking note of the stand taken by the petitioner in the statement made to the Police Authorities and the other factors including that the petitioner has given birth to a child which is one month old and that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, that the petitioner is a lady, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. 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 in Crime No.483/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) The petitioner shall physically present herself and mark her attendance before the Station House Officer, Mahadevapura Police Station once in a month between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., till conclusion of the trial.
(v) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(vi) 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.
VGR Sd/- JUDGE