IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV CRIMINAL PETITION No.1495/2019 Between:
Umesha S/o. Late Shivalingaiah Aged about 30 years, R/at No.53, 4th Floor, 1st Cross, Byraveshwaranagar, Mysuru 570 001.
Permanently residing at No.267, Behind Government, ITI College, NES Layout, Malavalli Town, Mandya District 571 430. … Petitioner (By Sri. M. R. Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate) And:
The State of Karnataka By Metagalli Police Station, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru 560 001. … Respondent (By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Spl.C.No.433/2018 (Crime No.137/2018) of Metagalli Police Station, for the offences p/u/s 498A, 302 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 pending on the file of the Hon’ble VI Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER Notice issued to the complainant has been served.
2. The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the proceedings in Crime No.137/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complaint was filed by the father of the victim on 30.08.2018. It is alleged that the petitioner was harassing the victim for dowry. It is further stated that the petitioner was an alcoholic and used to abuse the complainant’s daughter physically. It is stated that the complainant received information from his son’s friend that the petitioner had killed the complainant’s daughter. In light of the said incident, a complaint came to be filed. Pursuant to the same, FIR is registered, investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the version of the prosecution as made out in the charge sheet is not tenable. It is stated that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, as none has witnessed the commission of offence.
5. It is stated that the reliance on the statement of CW-10 who is alleged to have seen the petitioner coming out of the house on the morning of 30.08.2018 would not by itself justify the imputation sought to be made in the charge sheet.
6. Taking note of the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence, as there is no witness who has seen the commission of offence, the proof of offence is a matter for trial. Where the case rests on proof of circumstantial evidence and the petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on bail, the case needs to be treated differently as compared to a case where a witness has seen the commission of the offence.
7. In light of the above facts and also noticing that the petitioner is in custody since 4.9.2018 and that he is an employee of KPTCL, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.
8. In the result, the bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.137/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, 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 VGR