IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4263/2017 BETWEEN:
RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR RESIDING AT TANDREKOPPALU VILLAGE K R NAGARA TALUK NATIVE: TARIKAL DODDAKOPPALU VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571064.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI.KARUMBAIAH T A., ADV. ) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SALIGRAMA POLICE STATION SALIGRAMA, K R NAGAR TALUK MYSORE-571006.
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.58/2016 OF SALIGRAMA POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT AND S.C.NO.371/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,376,302 AND 201 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 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.58/2016 and during investigation and while filing the charge sheet, the offence under Section 376 of IPC is also inserted in the case.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments has submitted that looking to the prosecution material, there is no prima-facie case made out as against the petitioner herein. At the most, the materials show that both the deceased as well as the petitioner herein were desperate in life and hence, they have consumed poison and it is not a murder by the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution. He has further submitted that in fact the petitioner wanted to support his mother-in-law and that was the reason for him to go and stay in the house of parental place of the deceased. He has also submitted that as the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader, during the course of his arguments has submitted that, looking to the prosecution material, the deceased and the petitioner are the only persons, who slept in the new house, leaving the children with the mother-in-law of the petitioner in the old house. He has also submitted that though the deceased as well as the petitioner were said to have consumed the poison, but as per the medical opinion the cause of death is not consumption of poison, but it is because of the assault made on the deceased. Hence, in view of these materials placed on record, he submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, so also, the charge sheet material and other materials placed on record.
6. Looking to the complaint averments, it is no doubt true that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident, because even the complainant went to the said house in the early morning at 6.00a.m. and thereafter, with the help of the neighbours, they entered into the said house and the case of the prosecution that both were shifted to the hospital and on the way, the deceased, who is the daughter of the complainant, expired and the petitioner survived.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the couple were frustrated in life and that may be the reason for consuming poison and it is not a murder. I have perused the PM report. The doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, is of the opinion that cause of death is due to blunt force impact on the head and neck. Therefore, as per the PM report, the death is not because of consumption of poison, but it is because of the assault. Not only that, as per Section 106 of Evidence Act, it is only the couple, who slept in the said house. Therefore, those facts are exclusively within the knowledge of the petitioner himself. Considering all these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and to enlarge him on bail. Hence, the petition is hereby rejected.
However, the observations made in the body of this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and the learned Sessions Judge should not be influenced by the above observations and he has to dispose of the matter independently and in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR