Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Sri Arihant Kumar vs S Patil

High Court Of Karnataka|13 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5196/2019 BETWEEN :
Sri. Arihant Kumar S/o. Sri. M.G. Kumar Aged about 31 years R/a. No. B2-701 White House Apartments 15th Main, 6th Cross Bangalore – 560 032. … PETITIONER (By Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, Sr. Adv., a/w. Sri. Dayanand S. Patil, Adv.) AND :
The State of Karnataka by R.T. Nagar Police Station In Crime No. 0135/2019 Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building Bangalore 560 001. … RESPONDENT (By Sri. Honnappa, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No. 135/2019 of R.T. Nagar P.S., Bengaluru city for the offence punishable under Section 302, 306 read with Section3 4 of IPC and etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the records.
2. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner is the husband of one Bhavana and their marriage took place on 26.01.2015. They lived happily with each other and they were also blessed with a child. On 02.07.2019 at about 04.00 pm, father of the deceased received a phone call stating that his daughter Bhavana and grandson Devansh fell down from the 7th floor of the White House Apartment in which they were living and they breathed their last. On the basis of that he gave a complaint to the Police and requested the Police to investigate the matter. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner in the complaint there is absolutely no allegation made against the petitioner whatsoever about the conjugal relationship between the petitioner and the deceased as well as the relationship between the child and the father. Not even a single sentence is expressed suspecting the conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and he has been in judicial custody. The trial Court has rejected the bail petition only on the ground that he may tamper with the prosecution witnesses and he may abscond from the clutches of law. This ground can be corrected by imposing stringent conditions.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader argued before the Court that there are some further statements of the parents as well as the sister of the deceased got recorded, wherein the deceased had telephoned them that she had some harassment and ill-treatment by her husband and therefore she wanted to end her life. The above said aspects have to be clarified during investigation and full dressed trial. What type of ill- treatment and harassment was given and whether it was actually sufficient to drive the said lady to commit suicide by killing her sole son is to be investigated. Under the above circumstances at the initial stages when there are absolutely no allegations against the petitioner and the petitioner has already been produced before the jurisdictional Court and he is no more required for any further investigation, in my opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail on stringent conditions. Hence, the following order;
The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 0135/2019 on the file of XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with Two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in hampering investigation or tampering the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the jurisdictional Court on all future hearing dates unless exempted by the Court for any genuine cause.
(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.
(v) The petitioner shall attend the Police Station once in fifteen days on Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. for a period of three months or till the completion of investigation, whichever is earlier.
Sd/- JUDGE.
LRS.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Sri Arihant Kumar vs S Patil

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
13 August, 2019
Judges
  • K N Phaneendra