Crl.P.No.2509/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2509 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. PUTTARANGAMMA
W/O JAYANNA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
2. JAYANNA
S/O LATE BAPPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF
MALLENAHALLI VILLAGE,
HAGALVADI HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-26.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVI H.K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE
BY CHELUR POLICE STATION,
GUBBI CIRCLE,
GUBBI TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 101,
REP. BY SPP,
Crl.P.No.2509/2018
2
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.139/2017 OF CHELUR POLICE
STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A, 304B R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This present petition is the third successive bail
petition. The earlier bail petitions which were
Crl.P.No.8070/2017, filed under Section 438 of Code
of Criminal Procedure and Crl.P.No.73/2018, filed
under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure,
were came to be rejected by this Court by the order
dated 20.11.2017 and 02.02.2018 respectively. As
Crl.P.No.2509/2018
3
such, the alleged facts of the case as per the
prosecution and the alleged contention of the
petitioners that they are innocent people, would not
require a re-analysis at this stage. What is required to
be looked for is about the changed circumstances in
the case, if any, subsequent to the rejection of
Crl.P.No.73/2018, on 02.02.2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in his
argument submitted that the deceased –
Rakshitha/Rekha has one more living child, who is
three years old and to take care of the child, there is
nobody in the family. Further, the present petitioners
are in judicial custody since four months. Learned
counsel also submitted that the charge sheet has been
filed in the matter and the case papers go to show
that the relationship of the deceased with the accused
were cordial earlier.
Crl.P.No.2509/2018
4
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader who
has taken notice for the respondent-State in his
argument submits that none of the above facts
alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are
any changed circumstances. All these aspects were
considered when previous bail petitions of the very
same petitioners were rejected by this Court.
4. Even according to the petitioners, the age of
the living child of the deceased – Rakshitha/Rekha is
three years, which means as at the time of filing of
previous bail petitions also, the child was living with
the very same problem about taking its care. On the
contrary, now the child is a bit older, though is still of
tender age, as such, the same is not a changed
circumstance subsequent to rejection of the earlier
bail petitions of the petitioners.
Crl.P.No.2509/2018
5
Filing of the charge sheet was also in the month
of November, 2017, which was about three months
prior to the rejection of the similar bail petition of
these petitioners in Crl.P.No.73/2018. As such, the
filing of the charge sheet is also not a changed
circumstances. The alleged cordial relationship which
the deceased was said to have enjoying with the
petitioners would not be a material fact to consider,
since the said aspect has also been considered in the
previous bail petitions of the same petitioners, by this
Court. As such, without going into further detail,
suffice to observe that there is no change in the
circumstance subsequent to rejection of the previous
bail petition in Crl.P.No.73/2018 dated 02.02.2018.
Crl.P.No.2509/2018
6
As such, I do not find any reason to allow this
petition. Accordingly, petition stands rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PB
