IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4711/2019 BETWEEN:
SUJATHA E @ BUDDU W/O. LATE EDWIN @ ALEXANDER AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT:#13, B-2 QUARTERS 1ST MAIN, L.R.NAGAR KORAMANGALA BANGALORE - 560047 (BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR D., ADV., FOR SRI VINAYA B.R., ADV.,)) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ADUGODI P.S.
REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001 (BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP) ... PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.75/2019 REGISTERED BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 201 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the charge sheet filed by the police is that the complainant’s son by name Edwin @ Alexander has married a lady by name Sujatha and it was a love marriage and they were blessed with three children. The complainant was often visiting their house and found that they were quarrelling with each other inspite of advice by the complainant. The said Sujatha alleged to have developed intimacy with one Appu. This fact was also within the knowledge of Edwin @ Alexander. In this background, it is alleged that on 02.05.2019 in the morning hours the Edwin @ Alexander came from Chennai to Bengaluru with an intention to take his wife to Chennai. The petitioner on the same night of 03.05.2019 at about 12:30 a.m., the mother of the petitioner telephoned to the complainant that Edwin has stabbed himself and admitted to Bowring hospital and when the complainant went there, he came to know that the accused-petitioner and another have stabbed the deceased Edwin. On the basis of the said information, the police have investigated the matter and during the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statement of the mother of the petitioner, who is an eye witness to the incident and other witnesses who are also examined by the police. They all stated that on the date of the alleged incident, petitioner and accused No.2 have actually quarreled with deceased-Alexander and stabbed him and due to which the deceased sustained several injuries and later he succumbed to the injuries. The post mortem examination report also shows that deceased has sustained as many as 07 incised wound and death was due to smock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained by the injured.
3. Looking to the above said facts and circumstances and considering the version of eye witnesses, at this stage, it is not appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a lady and special provision under Section 437 of Cr.P.C., is applicable, but when strong and prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, it is only discretionary power that Court can exercise either to enlarge the petitioner or to dismiss the bail petition. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioner if advised, is at liberty to file fresh bail petition on changed circumstances in future.
Sd/- JUDGE HJ