IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.3063/2019 Between:
Sri Thygaraja, S/o Bommarayi, Aged about 38 years, R/at Baguru Village, Baguru Hobli, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District – 572 301. … Petitioner (By Sri Pratheep K.C., Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Channarayapatna Town Police, Hassan District, Rep. by its, State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore – 560 001. …Respondent (By Sri K.P. Yoganna, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr. No.447/2018 of Channarayapatna Town Police Station, Hassan District for the offence p/u/s 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.447/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by the sister of the deceased. It is stated that the petitioner had married the deceased about 8 years prior to the incident and that they did not have any children from within the said wedlock. It is stated that there were alleged demands for dowry from the petitioner. It is stated that on 28.12.2018 the petitioner and the complainant had gone to perform pooja at Channarayapatna. It is stated that during their brief stay at Channarayapatna the body of the deceased was found and it is alleged that she died due to drowning and the complainant had expressed suspicion regarding the petitioner, of having done to death the deceased. Accordingly, the complaint is filed, FIR is registered, investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 03.01.2019.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Even as per the case of the prosecution, C.W.5 has seen the petitioner and the victim together and is not a witness to the commission of the offence. It is contended that the proof of offence is a matter for trial and there is no person who has witnessed the commission of offence. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents and hence, present proceedings ought not to be treated as punitive.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader states that there are strong circumstantial evidence to implicate the petitioner.
5. Taking note of the fact that admittedly, there is none who has seen the actual commission of offence, case rests on circumstantial evidence and proof of motive is to be established during trial. As investigation is complete, charge sheet has been filed, case is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.447/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of `1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness.
(iv) In the event of change of address, the petitioner to inform the same to the concerned SHO.
(v) Any violation of the aforementioned conditions by the petitioner, shall result in cancellation of bail.
Any observation made herein shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE VP