Maregowda vs State Of Karntaka on 9 October, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE RATHNAKALA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6857 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

MAREGOWDA S/O BOMMANNA,
AGED 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GIDEGALAHALLI,
DODDERI HOBLI,
MADHUGIRI TALUK,
TUMAKURU-572 175.
…PETITIONER

(BY SRI M.S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI MANJUNATHA N., ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BADAVANAHALLI POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 439 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.8/2017
(S.C.NO.5021/2017) OF BADAVANAHALLI P.S., TUMAKURU
DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.302, 498A R/W. 34 OF
IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2

ORDER

The petitioner (accused No.1) along with co-accused

is charge sheeted by the respondent – Police in respect of

the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of

IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC.

2. The allegation is, petitioner was married to the

deceased for 14 years and was residing separately with

his wife and son. In the morning hours of 14.02.2017,

while the deceased was quarrelling with her in-laws, the

petitioner assaulted the deceased with a wooden club

and she expired then and there itself due to heavy

bleeding causing hemorrhage in the skull.

3. Heard the learned senior counsel for the

petitioner, learned HCGP for the State and perused the

papers.

4. Sri M.S.Rajendra Prasad, learned senior counsel

for the petitioner submits that there is nobody to look
3

after 13 years old minor son of the petitioner. Even if the

prosecution case is accepted on its entirety, then also it

will not make out a case punishable under Section 302 of

IPC. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any

conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

5. However, considering the fact that there are two

eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, it is not in the

interest of justice to enlarge the petitioner at this stage.

Hence, the petition is dismissed and liberty is reserved

to the petitioner to move fresh bail petition before the

trial Court after the statement of the direct eyewitnesses

is recorded.

6. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial,

frame charge and proceed with the trial. The exercise of

recording the evidence of the eyewitnesses – CWs.2 to 6

as far as possible shall be completed within 60 days of

the communication of this order. Liberty is reserved to
4

the petitioner to move fresh bail petition thereafter.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nvj

Leave a Comment

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