1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.355/2018
Between:

THANGELA NARENDRA @ CHINNU
S/O THANGELA KONDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCCUPATION: IT NETWORK,
ENGINEER IN COGNIZANT
R/AT NO.1227, GROUND FLOOR,
43RD CROS, 5TH BLOCK,
HBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST,
BANGALORE 560043. .. PETITIONER

(By Sri HASHMATH PASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HENNUR POLICE,
BANGALORE-560 043
(REPRESETED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HCK, BENGALURU-560 001. .. RESPONDENT

(By Sri S VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME
2

NO.251/2017 (SESSIONS CASE NO.1349/2017) OF
HENNUR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 304B R/W 34 OF IPC,
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

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

This petition is under Section 439 of Cr.PC. The

petitioner has approached this court again seeking bail

after dismissal of the earlier bail petition in Crl.P

No.8419/2017 filed by him and his brother.

2. The incident in connection with the present

petition is the unnatural death of a woman by name

Shilpa @ Sanjana, the wife of the 1st accused.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that this petitioner has approached this Court again

under changed circumstances. According to him, the

following are the changed circumstances:

1) On earlier occasion he and his brother
sought bail by filing a common petition. At the
time, the case of the petitioner was not
3

individually considered and therefore now this
application can be considered individually with
regard to materials collected by the prosecution
against him during the investigation.

2) The charge sheet has been submitted and
trial may take some time to be concluded.

4. Apart from the above, learned counsel also

submits that the petitioner is a resident of Bengaluru in

connection with his employment. The 1st accused was

earlier working at Hyderabad and it was at the instance

of the petitioner, the 1st accused came to Bengaluru

along with his wife. They were residing separately. The

petitioner got married on 7.5.2017. This being the case,

the allegation found against him in the complaint that

he was sexually harassing the deceased is totally

unbelievable and there are no materials as regards this

allegation. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that in this back ground also, the petitioner

becomes entitled to bail.

4

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

argues that this Court has already expressed the

opinion that the materials collected by the Investigating

Officer during the investigation, prima facie establish

the involvement of this petitioner and therefore there

are no changed circumstances to grant bail.

6. Having heard both sides, I feel it opt to

extract here the observations made by the Court while

disposing of Crl.P No.8419/2017:

“6. Perusing the averments made in the
complaint and other charge sheet material
collected during investigation by the
investigation agency, they shows regarding
the ill-treatment and harassment meted out
to the deceased by the petitioners. The
Investigating Officer has recorded the
statement of witnesses, who are the
neighbours, even looking to the statement of
those witnesses, there is a material placed
by the prosecution regarding the ill-
treatment and harassment to the deceased
by the petitioners insisting her to bring
additional dowry amount from her parental
place. The alleged incident took place in the
house of the petitioners within 17 months of
marriage. Therefore, looking to the charge
sheet material, at this stage prosecution
placed prima-facie material to show the
5

involvement of the petitioners in committing
the alleged offence. Therefore, it is not a fit
case to exercise discretion in favour of the
petitioners and to release them on bail.
Hence, petition is hereby rejected.”

7. The afore extracted observations show that

this court was convinced about existence of prima facie

materials against the petitioner. The Investigating

Officer appears to have examined the neighbours of the

house where the deceased was living and their

statements came to be considered. Therefore, I find no

better reason to take different view now.

8. The two circumstances pointed out by the

petitioner’s counsel cannot be treated as changed

circumstances. It makes no difference in considering

the case of the petitioner jointly or individually. This

Court expressed opinion on earlier occasion that there

existed prima facie materials, which means to say that

including the petitioner, those materials were sufficient

enough to reject the bail. Secondly, the apprehension of
6

the petitioner that the trial will not conclude within a

short span of time cannot be a new ground. Many a

time, it is found that trial has got delayed due to non-

cooperation by the accused; any way it is not a matter

to be discussed here. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in the case of Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit –

vs- State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2017 SC 3986

and refers to paras-21 and 22 in the said judgment. It

has to be stated that there cannot be a second word

with regard to ratio laid down in the judgment. But the

petitioner has not made out real changed circumstance

to urge for being released on bail. The changed

circumstances means the circumstances other than the

one considered on earlier occasion. Such

circumstances are not found in the present petition.

Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

sd/-

JUDGE
Bkm