Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101261/2021
BETWEEN:
Mr. Mahadev S/o. Chandrappa Lamani,
Age:31 years, Occ: Coolie Driver
R/o: Hulikeri Thanda, Tq: Saundatti,
Dist: Belagavi
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRATIK SHIPURKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
The State of Karnataka,
Through Malmaruti P.S.,
Represented by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad-580 001
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.04.2021
PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC.
NO.313/2021 IN SESSIONS CASE NO.51/2021
2
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
498A AND 302 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
AND ALLOW THE PRESENT PETITION AND PASS
AN ORDER ENLARGING THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL WHO IS IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY FROM
11.04.2020.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the sole accused
under Section 439 of The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Cr.P.C.’, for brevity) seeking bail in Crime
No.35/2020 of Malamaruthi Police Station,
registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A and 302 read with Section 34 of
The Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘IPC’, for brevity).
2. It is the case of the prosecution that one
Devappa Lamani has filed a complaint stating
3
that on 02.04.2020 at about 3.00 p.m. the
petitioner and the deceased Rukmavva wife of
the petitioner had quarreled in their home
being a room provided by one Mr. Baluram
Patil who is the owner of the Body Building
Garage situated in the premises of Harikaka
Compound, Gandhi Nagar, Belagavai. The said
quarrel was basically over petitioner being
intoxicated and also over serving of stale lunch
and the quarrel was extended till 6.30 p.m. in
evening and it is stated that the
petitioner/accused being furious pressed the
neck of his wife and killed her. The said
complaint came to be registered in Crime
No.35/2020 for the offences punishable under
Section 498A and 302 of IPC. The petitioner
filed Crl.Misc.No.313/2021 seeking bail and the
same came to be rejected by V Additional
4
District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, by order
dated 16.04.2021. Therefore, the petitioner is
before this Court seeking bail.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. It would be the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is
innocent, he has not committed any offence as
alleged and he has been falsely implicated in
this case. He contends that there are no
eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of
the prosecution is based on the circumstantial
evidence. Since the investigation is over and
charge-sheet has been filed the petitioner is
not required for any custodial interrogation.
5
As the case is based on circumstantial evidence
the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. With this,
he prayed for allowing the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court
Government Pleader contended that the offence
alleged against the petitioner is heinous in
nature which is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. He contends that the
death has taken place in the house of the
petitioner. It is his further contention that
CWs.12 and 14 have seen the accused going
out of the house on the day and time of
incident. The Doctor who conducted post
mortem examination has noted ligature marks
over the neck of the deceased and it was
opinioned that cause of death is due to
6
asphyxia as a result of compression of neck.
He contends that on perusal of the entire
charge-sheet materials there is prima facie
case against the petitioner for the offence
committed. Therefore, he prayed to reject the
petition.
6. Having regard to the submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader, this
Court has gone through the charge-sheet
papers.
7. The accusation leveled against the
petitioner is that he used to come drunk and
quarrel with his wife Rukmavva and as on the
date of incident, as the deceased served stale
food to the petitioner, he quarreled with her
7
and pressed her neck and killed her.
Subsequently pretended as she died due to
electric shock. There are no eyewitnesses to
the incident and the prosecution case is based
on circumstantial evidence. As per the charge-
sheet papers CWs.12 and 14 are the two
persons who seen the petitioner going out of
the garage room. The other circumstances are
that, the death of the deceased who is the wife
of the petitioner has taken place in the house.
The prosecution has to prove those
circumstances along with other circumstances
beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner is in
judicial custody since 11.04.2020 and as the
charge-sheet is filed he is not required for
custodial interrogation. There are no criminal
antecedents of the petitioner. The main
objection of the prosecution is that in the
8
event of granting bail, the petitioner is likely to
cause threat to the complainant and other
prosecution witnesses. The same may be set
right by imposing stringent conditions.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case
and submission of the counsel, this Court is of
the view that there are valid grounds for
granting bail subject to certain terms and
conditions. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C., is allowed. Consequently, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in Crime
No.35/2020 of respondent Police Station
subject to the following conditions:
9
i) The petitioner shall execute a
personal bond for a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
Only) with one surety for the like sum
to the satisfaction of the
jurisdictional Court.
ii) The petitioner shall not indulge in
tampering the prosecution witnesses.
iii) The petitioner shall attend the Court
on all the dates of hearing unless
exempted and co-operate in speedy
disposal of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SBS*