1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8686/2017
BETWEEN:
DEVARAJA @ KARIYAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O HUCHAIAH
R/AT RAJANABILAGULI VILLAGE
HARANAHALLI HOBLI
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT – 571 107.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. NATARAJU, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION
PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP.)
THIS CRL.P. FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
NO.47/2017 OF BETTADAPURA POLICE STATION, MYSURU FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498(A), 302, 201 AND 306 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND
CJM COURT, PERIYAPATNA.
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
No.1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on
bail for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and
201 of IPC registered in respondent – police station
Crime No.47/2017 and after completing investigation,
charge sheet came to be filed for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 302 and 306 of IPC.
But the charge sheet came to be abated as against
accused No.2.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 and also the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring
the contents of the complaint lodged by the own brother
of the deceased Kusuma so also referring the statement
3
of the alleged eyewitnesses – CWs.4 and 5 made the
submission that firstly there is a delay of 20 days in
lodging the complaint, which is not properly explained
by the prosecution. Learned counsel further made the
submission that even looking to the contents of the
complaint, there was a petty quarrel between Kusuma
and the present petitioner. He also made the
submission that there are no materials to show that the
petitioner abetted the deceased to commit suicide. He
further submitted that from the date of the arrest of the
petitioner, he is in judicial custody. Completion of trial
may take some more time. Now, the investigation is
completed and charge sheet is also filed. By imposing
reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be enlarged
on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader made the submission that the death of Kusuma
and her two daughters is unnatural. Therefore, being a
4
husband it is his duty to inform the police about the
incident, which is not done in the present case. He also
made the submission that as Kusuma had two
daughters and she was not having male issue, the
petitioner picked up quarrel with her, abused her and
told her that he was going to marry another girl and told
her that she can go and die. Learned High Court
Government Pleader further made the submission that
the present petitioner is also responsible for screening
evidence in the matter. After the alleged incident, the
petitioner burnt all three bodies even before conducting
postmortem examination. Therefore, there was no
opportunity to conduct postmortem examination to
know the cause of death. Hence, he submitted that the
petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint and the entire charge sheet
materials.
5
6. Looking to the charge sheet materials, there
is a prima facie case as against the present petitioner
about his involvement in committing the alleged
offences. No doubt, there was a delay in filing the
complaint. The petitioner is also responsible for the
alleged incident because being a husband of Kusuma, it
is his duty to inform the same to the police. If according
to him, it was a case of suicide and he has not abetted
the deceased to commit suicide, he should have given
complaint about the incident, which has not been done
in this case. It is also the case of the prosecution that
immediately after the incident, all three dead bodies
were burnt before conducting postmortem examination.
Looking into these materials on record, it is not a case
to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SA