Karnataka High Court Gopal Rudrappa Bhangi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 December, 2013Author: K.N.Phaneendra

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013 BEFORE

THE HON’ BLE MR. JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRL.P.No.8162 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

Gopal Rudrappa Bhangi

Aged about 31 years

r/a.Civil Hospital Road

Dattatreya Nivas

Dharwad – 580 009. … PETITIONER (By SRI RAGHAVENDRA RAO K, ADV.)

AND

The State of Karnataka,

Hubli-Dharwad Women Police

Represented by State Public

Prosecutor, High Court of

Karnataka Building

Dharwad-580 009. … RESPONDENT (BY MR. B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

***

THIS Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 CR.P.C by the Advocate for the petitioner, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.42/2013 of Women P.S., Hubli Dharwad and CC No.1599/2013 for the 2

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 302, 304B r/w Section 34 of IPC.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day the Court made the following : – ORDER

The Hubli-Dharwad Police have registered a case in Crime No. 42/2013 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 304-B, 498-A, 323 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

2. The brief facts narrated from the records are that the complainant by name Ittappa S/o Siddappa lodged first information report on 17.06.2013 making allegations that his daughter Swathi had love affair with the petitioner and both of them went away in 2005 without intimation to the parents and thereafter, they got married themselves in the year 2008. As the complainant and his daughter were not in good terms at that time they did not attend the marriage. It is submitted in the FIR that on 13.06.2013 he received an information from the 3

father of the accused by name Rudrappa Bhangi at about 5.00 A.M. stating that Swathi was admitted to SDM Hospital due to her fall from the first floor of the house. The complainant came to the Hospital and thereafter he gave statement on 13.06.2013 stating that his daughter was not in a position to speak out anything. Therefore, after hearing her he would make necessary complaint. On 17.06.2013 he lodges a complaint stating that after the marriage on 02.03.2008 the accused had been ill-treating and harassing his wife (deceased Swathi) along with his father, mother and his brothers in demand of dowry. Smt. Swathi used to inform her father about this and on several occasions the complainant has consoled her and sent her back to the house of the accused. On these allegations he filed the FIR implicating the accused persons into the crime.

3. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner has already been released on bail. The petition filed 4

by this petitioner before the Sessions Court came to be rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the charge sheet is already filed and after filing of the charge sheet, the second bail petition moved before the Sessions Court in Crl. Misc. No.664/2013 also came to be dismissed on 26th September 2013. The learned Counsel contends that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the prima facie material on record. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. I have carefully perused the materials on record. It is true that on 13.06.2013 statements of Ittappa – father of the deceased and mother Shankaramma does not disclose any allegations of whatsoever against this petitioner or his father. It is only stated in the said statements that they have not given any dowry or anything to the petitioner at any point of time. But only one sentence spoken to is that after one year of the marriage, she came to the house of the 5

complainant stating that she quarreled with her husband. At that time also the complainant consoled her and sent her back to the matrimonial house. After this statement, for a period of four days there was no complaint whatsoever against the accused/petitioner. But in the FIR dated 17.06.2013 all the above said allegations have been made. Only eye witness in this particular case is one Mr. Sunil S/o Krishna Rao Koujalagi who is said to be the neighbour of the deceased. In his statement, it is stated that on 13.06.2013 at about 4.00 A.M. he heard some noise from the house of the accused/petitioners. He went there along with his wife. He saw the petitioner and his wife were quarrelling with each other. By the time they reached the house of the petitioner, they saw the accused/petitioner pushing the deceased from the first floor and she fell down from the first floor and thereafter admitted to the Hospital. The learned Sessions Judge considering the above said facts 6

found that there is prima facie material. Therefore, rejected the bail petition. The petitioner has already been arrested on 17.06.2013 itself and since six months he has been in judicial custody. Further, added to that, even culminating the entire material on record, it is difficult at this stage to come to the conclusion that the petitioner only with an intention of demanding dowry pushed the deceased from the first floor of his house. Whether there was any stairs and due to the quarrel between each other with an enraged mood the petitioner pushed her, is not forthcoming from the material on record, whether the intention was there on the part of the accused/petitioner to kill her cannot be inferred at this particular point of time. When two divergent opinions are in the same complaint i.e. on 13.06.2013 and 17.06.2013, it is necessary that the prosecution has to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt during the course of the trial. These two aspects, in my opinion creates a reasonable doubt in the case of 7

the prosecution that has to be thrashed at the time of the trial. The accused/petitioner never absconded, he was very much present in the same place when he was arrested even after the death of his wife. It also clearly goes to show that he had not made any attempt to abscond from the clutches of law.

5. Under the above said circumstances, in my opinion, the filing of the charge sheet makes an altogether different changed circumstances, because of the simple reason earlier both petitions came to be rejected on the ground that charge sheet was not been filed. Hence, I am of the opinion, by means of imposing certain conditions, the petitioner is required to be enlarged on bail.

6. Hence, I proceed to pass the following Order: The petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 42/2013 or if the case is committed the 8

bail shall be granted by the Trial Court on the following conditions:

a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or the Committal Court;

b) The accused/petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses; c) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly unless prevented by any genuine reasons; d) He shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission till the case registered against him is disposed of. Sd/-

JUDGE

Rbv