IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6949/2018 BETWEEN:
Venkataramana @ Venkatesh @ Bete S/o M.Ramaiah, Aged about 37 years, R/at : Thurap Gadda Village, Kappadapalli Post, Bairareddipalli Mandal, Palamanari Taluk, Chittur District – 636 001.
(By Sri.Jagadeesha.H, Advocate) AND:
The State of Karnataka By Yelahanka Police Station, Bangalore.
Rep. by their Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bangalore – 01.
(By Smt.Namitha Mahesh, HCGP) ...Petitioner ...Respondent This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.33/2016 (S.C.No.951/2016) of Yelahanka Police Station, Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail in S.C.No.951/2016 (Crime No.33/2016 of Yelahanka Police Station) on the file of LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State.
3. Gist of the complaint is that petitioner- accused was working as a mason. He got married with the deceased about five years back and they were residing in a house provided by his employer. Both of them were working as a mason. It is further alleged that the accused is in the habit of suspecting the fidelity of his wife and in this regard, he used to make galata with the deceased and used to beat her by consuming alcohol. On the previous night on 26.01.2016 there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased and the petitioner committed murder of his wife by assaulting with binding wire bundle, iron rod and wooden patti and ran away from the place. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered. After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. There are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. He further submitted after thirteen days after the alleged incident, statement has been recorded, that itself creates suspicion in the case of the prosecution. He submitted that there are no materials to show that the petitioner is involved in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the deceased was having illicit relationship with other person and that there was no possibility of he committing the murder. He further submits that he is ready to abide by the conditions imposed by this Court and ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to release the petitioner-accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that CWs.13 to 17 are the last seen witnesses to the alleged incident. They saw the deceased and the petitioner quarrelling with each other on the previous night and they also saw the petitioner-accused going out of the house in morning hours at 4.30 A.M., and thereafter, the alleged incident has taken place. The petitioner-accused has not explained under what circumstances the incident has taken place. There is ample material to show that the petitioner-accused is involved in the alleged incident. He further submitted that the alleged offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If the petitioner/accused is released on bail, he may abscond and may not be available for trial. On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the contents of the complaint and other materials, which has been produced along with the petition.
7. On close reading of the charge sheet material it discloses that there is ample material to connect the petitioner-accused to the alleged incident. The petitioner-accused suspecting the fidelity of his wife, had quarrel with her and at that time, the complainant and other witnesses who were present had advised the petitioner-accused. On the previous night of the alleged incident there was quarrel between the petitioner and deceased and CWs.13 to 17 have also seen the petitioner-accused going out of the house in the morning. All these materials clearly points out the guilt of the accused and involvement in the crime. There is circumstantial evidence as against the petitioner- accused.
8. Under the said facts and circumstances, the petitioner-accused is not entitled to be released on bail. Hence, the petition stands dismissed.
The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.
Sd/- JUDGE UN