SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Chennakeshava @ Keshava vs State By Rajagopalnagar on 28 November, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6544 OF 2019

Between:

Chennakeshava @ Keshava
S/o late Shivanna
Aged about 33 years
R/at 32, 4th E Cross
Behind Akash Theatre, Laggere
Bengaluru-560058. …Petitioner

(By Sri Sateesh Chandra K.V, Adv. For
Sri Kapil Dev C.Ullal, Adv)

And:
State by Rajagopalnagar
Police Station
Bengaluru City
By the State Public Prosecutor
High Court Complex
Bengaluru-560001. … Respondent

(By Sri.M.Diwakar Maddur, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Cr.No.1076/2017 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station,
Bengaluru City for the offence punishable under Sections
498-A and Section302 of IPC and etc.,

This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day,
the Court made the following:
-2-

ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-

accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., to release him on bail

in Crime No.1076/2017 of Rajagopal Nagar Police Station for

the offence punishable under Sections 498A and Section302 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner-accused and the learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent-State.

3. The gist of the complaint is that the deceased-

Shobha was legally wedded to the accused about 9 years

back. The accused addicted to alcohol and he used to harass

the deceased both physically and mentally for demand of

money. The deceased was working in Garments and she left

the job and has received as a Provident fund to the extent of

Rupees One Lakh. When she failed to pay the said Provident

Fund to the petitioner/accused. On 09.12.2017, he came to

the house by consuming alcohol and picked up quarrel. With

an intention to kill, poured the kerosene on her and set her

ablaze. As a result of the same, she died because of the
-3-

injuries. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been

registered.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner-accused was not present at the

time of alleged incident and the name of the petitioner-

accused was not found in the complaint. It is his further

submission that the neighboring witnesses have deposed

that immediately seeing her ablazing, they came and pour

the water and extinguished the fire and if that is the case, in

the mahazar which has been drawn, there must be some

water fallen on the ground, but no such water is found in the

panchanama. It is his further submission that the alleged

incident had taken place in between 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m.

and in the postmortem report semi digested food was found,

that itself goes to show that she had already taken the food.

It is his further submission that because of IVF report she

was depressed and under said depression, she lost money as

well as her health. So in that light, she committed suicide

and there are no serious overt acts against the petitioner-

accused is concerned. It is his further submission that she

has resigned to the job and thereafter the medical test has
-4-

been done. Because of the said factual depression, she has

committed suicide. It is his further submission that if the

accused has poured the kerosene and let the fire, under

such circumstances, the burn will be more. The doctor who

conducted the postmortem has not specifically stated as to

what is the percentage of the burn injuries which have been

found over the body of the deceased.

5. If these materials have been considered and

there is no prima-facie case as against the petitioner-

accused. It is his further submission that earlier he has

approached this Court but IVF report and other materials

were not produced. In that light, he has filed the petition. On

these grounds, he prays to allow the petition and release the

petitioner-accused on bail.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader vehemently argued and submitted that the

petitioner-accused has approached this Court for granting

bail and this Court by order dated 26.03.2019 has dismissed

the petition by considering the merits of the case. It is his

further submission that on the alleged date of incident, the
-5-

husband has consumed alcohol and immediately, thereafter,

he started quarrelling and assaulted the deceased physically

and subject her for mental cruelty for demand of money and

in that light he poured kerosene on her and ablazed her.

Because of the burn injuries, the deceased died in the

hospital. The postmortem report also corroborates with the

contention of the prosecution. It is his further submission

that CW.8 and CW.9 are the eye witnesses to the alleged

incident and they have categorically stated during the course

of investigation the presence of the accused. It is his further

submission that earlier the petitioner had approached this

Court and no new grounds have been made out. On these

grounds, he prays to dismiss the petition.

7. I have carefully and cautiously gone through

the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and perused the records.

8. On close reading of the contents of the charge

sheet material especially which has been made available.

CW.8 and CW.9 are the neighborer, residing by the side of

the house of the deceased and they have also stated in their
-6-

statements with regard to the earlier quarrel which had

taken place in between the accused and the deceased and

when he came out of the house, immediately the smoke was

emitting from the house, and noticing the same they

extinguished the fire and then she was admitted to hospital.

All these factual matrix of the case has been taken into

consideration and I am of the considered opinion that there

is material to connect the accused to the alleged crime.

Earlier the accused had approached this Court and this

Court, after considering the material placed on record, had

come to the conclusion that there is prima-facie material as

against the petitioner-accused. In that light, it was

dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner-accused has not made

out any good grounds to release him on bail.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
ssb

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation