IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2605/2019 BETWEEN:
SRI M.S. PARAMESHA S/O LATE SHANKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT MUGULIKATTE VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN CODE – 577 547 (AT PRESENT IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY) ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M. PARTHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YAGATI P.S. KADUR TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU REP. BY HCGP, H.C.K.
BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI HONNAPPA, HCGP) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT BAIL TO THE PETITIONER IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.81/2018 OF S.C.NO.31/2019 OF YAGATI POLICE STATION, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard and perused the records.
2. The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.81/2018. The brief allegations are that a lady by name Smt. Bharathi W/o Omkaramurthy of Mugalikatte Village, Yagati Hobli, Kadur Taluk, lodged a report stating that she was given in marriage to one Omkaramurthy and she has been residing along with her husband and children. The father-in-law of the complainant by name Ningappa’s sister namely, Maralasiddamma was given in marriage to one Rangappa. As the husband of the said Maralasiddamma had left her, she started living in Mugalikatte Village in a separate house. In this context, it is alleged that on the date of the incident on 12.11.2018, at about 8.30 p.m., when the complainant and her husband were in front of their house, Maralasiddamma also came to that particular spot. At that time, the petitioner who was holding a chopper in his hand came to that particular spot and got hold of Omkaramurthy and wanted to kill him. Therefore, he slashed the chopper towards the neck of the said Omkaramurthy. In the meantime, the said Maralasiddamma came across and said chopper fell on the neck of the said lady due to which she sustained severe injury and she died later.
3. On these allegations, the police have investigated the matter and laid charge sheet and the accused was arrested and since the date of his arrest, he has been in judicial custody. Though learned counsel contended that there was no intention to commit murder of Maralasiddamma, but Section 301 of IPC is an extension to Section 300 of IPC. Even if he has no intention to kill the said lady but intention to kill some person can be looked into by the Court.
4. Apart from the above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this particular case, on that particular date, there was some galata taken place between Omkaramurthy and the petitioner and this Maralasiddamma went and interrupted the said galata. In this context, as noted above, the blow was given to Omakaramurthy, but it fell on the neck of Maralasiddamma. Whether this was within the knowledge on the part of the accused that the said blow also may fall on Maralasiddamma and whether he had any intention to even kill Omkaramurthy, has to be thrashed out during the course of trial in order to ascertain whether the offence is punishable under Section 301 of IPC or under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Therefore, looking to the above circumstances, the incident appears to have happened in a spur of moment and without any intention.
5. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail on certain conditions. Hence, the following:
ORDER The Petition is allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.81/2018 of Yagati Police Station registered as Spl.Case No.31/2019 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru registered against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 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 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.
Sd/- JUDGE ca