Devaraja @ Kariyaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 12 December, 2017

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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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