IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.1855 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
Sabu S/o Ramulu Aged 22 years Working as Coolie, R/at Muniraju Concrete Shed, Hullahalli Vilalge, Anekal Taluk Bengaluru Rural District-562 106.
... Petitioner (By Sri.Shiva Prasad Y.S, Advocate) AND:
State of Karnataka by Bannerghatter Police Station, Represented by SPP High Court Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
... Respondent (By Sri. S.Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.112/2018 of Bannerghatta Police station, Bengaluru city for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
The Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to be enlarged on bail as he is in detention in connection with the proceedings in Crime No.112/2018 relating to offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The petitioner states that complaint has been filed by the mother of the deceased and it is stated that the deceased had married the petitioner about four years prior to the incident. It is further stated that the petitioner and the deceased had come to Bengaluru in search of avocation and were living in a shed erected for the labourers. It is further stated that complainant who is the mother of the deceased had come to Bengaluru and was residing in a shed near the place of the incident.
3. It is stated that on 30.05.2018, when they were all asleep, the petitioner and his wife had altercation and it is stated that the petitioner had assaulted her and she succumbed to injuries. Petitioner states that investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. It is to be noticed that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.06.2018.
4. The petitioner contends that the story of the prosecution cannot be believed as though the complainant is said to be illiterate a computerized complaint has been filed without any reference as to who had typed the complaint. It is also contended that the recovery of was a chopper though it is the case of the prosecution that injuries were inflicted by a knife. It is also contended that the recovery was in a open space accessible to all and hence recovery is suspected.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that since investigation is completed, the question as to whether petitioner is guilty of the offences is a matter of trial and continued detention, at this point of time, does not serve any purpose. It is noticed that the application filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Judge seeking to be enlarged on bail has been dismissed by order dated 05.03.2019. The Sessions Judge has merely observed that the offence said to have been committed is severe and heinous and states that mere filing of charge sheet is no ground for construing that the allegations made are not in any way less grievous.
6. Taking note of the fact that the investigation is completed, it is to be noticed that bail proceedings cannot be construed to the proceedings for punishment of the accused. The question as to whether the petitioner is involved in the offence beyond reasonable doubt is a matter to be established only during the course of trial. The only apprehension of threat to witnesses can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions:
(i) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with a surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court where the case in Crime No.112/2018 of Bannerghatta Police Station is pending.
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate with the expeditious disposal of trial and shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth.
(iii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence or any witnesses in any manner.
(iv) Petitioner shall mark his attendance before the concerned SHO once in a month till the conclusion of the trial.
Petitioner also undertakes that he would not go near the locality where the witnesses Cw.Nos.1 to 6 reside.
Sd/- JUDGE ag