SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Perumal vs State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3125/2019

BETWEEN:

Perumal
S/o. Manikyam,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at. No. Karthik Building,
Om Shakti Temple Road,
Sanjeevini Nagar,
Hegganahalli,
Bangalore-560 091. … Petitioner

(By Sri. Hashmath Pasha, Senior Counsel for
Sri. Syed Muzakkir Ahmed, Advocate)

AND:

State of Karnataka
By Rajagopalanagar Police Station,
Bangalore-560 096.

(Represented by learned State
Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore-560 001). … Respondent

(By Sri. K.P. Yoganna, HCGP)
2

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of the Criminal Procedure Code praying to
enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.309/2018 (S.C.
No.1551/2018) of Rajagopalnagar P.S., Bangalore for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, Section302 of
IPC.

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

ORDER

The petitioner has sought to be enlarged on bail in

connection with his detention in Crime No.309/2018

with respect to the offences punishable under Sections

498(A) and Section302 of IPC.

2. The case that is made out by the prosecution

is that the deceased-Sangeetha had married the

petitioner about 15 years back and they have two

children, son-Madan Kumar, aged about 13 years and

daughter-Mani, aged about 10 years, respectively. It is

stated that the accused had developed a habit of

consuming alcohol and during intoxicated state, he

used to abuse and beat his wife and was insisting her to
3

bring money from her father. It is further stated that on

09.05.2018 at about 7:30 a.m., the petitioner had

informed the complainant, who is his father-in-law

about the death of his daughter. Subsequently, on the

basis of the complaint, a UDR case was registered and

investigation was commenced. The investigation is now

complete. The petitioner was arrested and has

continued to remain in custody since 27.05.2018.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the

Inquest Report under Section 174 of Cr.P.C at Column

No.17, there is a clear observation that the cause of

death is not clearly ascertainable and further medical

investigation was sought for. It is submitted that only

on the basis of Histopathology Report, the Doctor had

opined that the cause of death was due to multiple

injuries sustained, which the learned Senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioner states is a matter

to be proved.

4

4. Note is taken of the fact that the case rests

on circumstantial evidence as the circumstances of

death is a matter that does not come out clearly and

requires to be proved as there are no eye witness who

have witnessed the event of death of the deceased. It is

to be noted that the learned LIX Additional City Civil

and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru at the stage when

investigation was still to be completed has rejected the

application of the petitioner seeking to be enlarged on

bail.

5. Taking note of the fact that the charge sheet

having been filed and that the case rests on

circumstantial evidence and that CWs.2 and 8 were

examined and have turned hostile and also that

proceedings for bail cannot be treated to be proceedings

to punish the petitioner, the petitioner is enlarged on

bail. The petitioner has two children aged about 13
5

years and 10 years and they are in the custody of the

petitioner’s friend, is also a matter to be taken note of.

6. Accordingly, bail petition filed by the

petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed,

subject to the following conditions:

(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only)
with a surety for the likesum before the trial
Court.

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
expeditious disposal of the case and he shall
not indulge in any criminal activities
henceforth.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way any witness
or hamper directly or indirectly the
investigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE
RB

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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