IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6996/2017 BETWEEN:
Rekha Mandal, W/o Bidyuth Mandal, Aged about 27 years, R/at No.576, 4th Cross, Shivapur Peenya, Bengaluru – 560 058.
Permanent Address, R/at Tarapura Village, Gopalpura Post, Nadiya District, West Bengal – 741 402.
(By Sri.Nataraj D., Adv.) AND:
State by Peenya Police Station, Bengaluru – 560 058.
Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru – 01.
(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP) …PETITIONER ….RESPONDENT This criminal petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.596/2016 of Peenya Police station, Bengaluru City and Spl.C.C.No.452/2016 pending on the file of L Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, for the offence P/U/S 302 R/w 34 of IPC.
This criminal petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R This is the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail for the alleged offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station Crime No.596/2016. But later on, the offence under Section 302 of IPC was made out by the prosecution.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that, one Prakash has lodged the complaint alleging that on 27.06.2016 at about 8.00 a.m. Peenya police had called him to come near his house. He went there to his rented house, there he met accused No.1 who is in rented house. On enquiring the accused No.1, she stated on 26.01.2016 night approximately at 12.00, she wanted to go for answering first call of nature and at that time, her daughter Babli also want to go for answering the first call of nature and her daughter came out with her and after attending the nature call, accused No.1 came back to her house but, her daughter did not returned to house. Accused No.1 searched her daughter everywhere and in the long distance her daughter was going lonely on road and on previous occasions also accused No.1’s daughter went in the mid of the night so many times and accused No.1 brought her daughter back to house with anger and the accused No.1 took one wooden rip piece and assaulted her daughter and thereafter pushed her towards the wall and at that time, the daughter got injuries to her head and fell down by collapsing and accused No.1 by seeing her daughter blood was coming from the nostrils and body of her daughter became cold and she died. On the basis of the said complaint, firstly the case came to be registered under Section 304 of IPC and after investigation, charge sheet came to be filed under Section 302 of IPC.
3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made the submission that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner/accused No.1 to commit the murder of the deceased. Learned counsel also submitted that it was because of the grave and sudden provocation looking to the conduct of the deceased going to such a long distance, the petitioner/accused No.1 became angry and she assaulted.
5. As per the allegation made by the prosecution, he also submitted that petitioner was taking every care of her daughter by admitting her to the school. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that accused No.2 – father of the deceased has also been granted bail. Hence, he submitted that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner/accused No.1 may be enlarged on bail.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader made the submission that it is an intentional act of the petitioner/accused No.1. Therefore, there is no question of grave and sudden provocation. He made the submission that the opinion of the doctor regarding the cause of death is itself because of the shock and hammarage of brain, as a result of multiple injury. He submitted that the petitioner/accused No.1 is not entitled to be released on bail.
7. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and also entire charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner alongwith petition containing the statement of witnesses.
8. Perusing the prosecution material, the statement of witnesses, prima facie goes to show that the deceased girl was treated to be an obstacle to the couple in their privacy, because of that reason she was assaulted.
9. Perusing the materials and only because that the girl went out of the house to answer the nature call and did not come back to the house, she was subject to have been assaulted with the wooden rip and there afterwards, she was pushed towards wall and thereby deceased sustained injuries.
10. Considering the matter and medical opinion, I am of the opinion that prosecution placed the prima facie material about the involvement of the petitioner in committing the offence. No doubt, accused No.2 has been granted with bail, but ground of parity is not applicable because there is no allegations that accused No.2 has also assaulted the girl.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE MH/-