Ravi @ Ravikumar vs State Of Karnataka on 6 October, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4263/2017
BETWEEN:

RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR
RESIDING AT TANDREKOPPALU VILLAGE
K R NAGARA TALUK
NATIVE: TARIKAL DODDAKOPPALU VILLAGE
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KARUMBAIAH T A., ADV. )

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SALIGRAMA POLICE STATION
SALIGRAMA, K R NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE-571006.
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.58/2016 OF SALIGRAMA POLICE
STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT AND S.C.NO.371/2016
PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
2

JUDGE, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A,376,302 AND 201 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused

under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail

of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302

and 201 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station

Crime No.58/2016 and during investigation and while

filing the charge sheet, the offence under Section 376 of

IPC is also inserted in the case.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the

course of his arguments has submitted that looking to
3

the prosecution material, there is no prima-facie case

made out as against the petitioner herein. At the most,

the materials show that both the deceased as well as

the petitioner herein were desperate in life and hence,

they have consumed poison and it is not a murder by

the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution. He has

further submitted that in fact the petitioner wanted to

support his mother-in-law and that was the reason for

him to go and stay in the house of parental place of the

deceased. He has also submitted that as the

investigation is completed and charge sheet has been

filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may

be enlarged on bail.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader, during the course of his arguments has

submitted that, looking to the prosecution material, the

deceased and the petitioner are the only persons, who
4

slept in the new house, leaving the children with the

mother-in-law of the petitioner in the old house. He has

also submitted that though the deceased as well as the

petitioner were said to have consumed the poison, but

as per the medical opinion the cause of death is not

consumption of poison, but it is because of the assault

made on the deceased. Hence, in view of these

materials placed on record, he submitted that petitioner

is not entitled to be released on bail.

5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint, so also, the charge sheet

material and other materials placed on record.

6. Looking to the complaint averments, it is no

doubt true that there are no eye-witnesses to the

incident, because even the complainant went to the said

house in the early morning at 6.00a.m. and thereafter,

with the help of the neighbours, they entered into the
5

said house and the case of the prosecution that both

were shifted to the hospital and on the way, the

deceased, who is the daughter of the complainant,

expired and the petitioner survived.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that the couple were frustrated in life and

that may be the reason for consuming poison and it is

not a murder. I have perused the PM report. The

doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of

the deceased, is of the opinion that cause of death is

due to blunt force impact on the head and neck.

Therefore, as per the PM report, the death is not

because of consumption of poison, but it is because of

the assault. Not only that, as per Section 106 of

Evidence Act, it is only the couple, who slept in the said

house. Therefore, those facts are exclusively within the

knowledge of the petitioner himself. Considering all
6

these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is

not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the

petitioner and to enlarge him on bail. Hence, the

petition is hereby rejected.

However, the observations made in the body of

this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this

petition and the learned Sessions Judge should not be

influenced by the above observations and he has to

dispose of the matter independently and in accordance

with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE
BSR

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *