1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4263/2017
BETWEEN:
RAVI @ RAVIKUMAR
RESIDING AT TANDREKOPPALU VILLAGE
K R NAGARA TALUK
NATIVE: TARIKAL DODDAKOPPALU VILLAGE
HUNSUR TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT-571064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KARUMBAIAH T A., ADV. )
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SALIGRAMA POLICE STATION
SALIGRAMA, K R NAGAR TALUK
MYSORE-571006.
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.CHETAN DESAI, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.58/2016 OF SALIGRAMA POLICE
STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT AND S.C.NO.371/2016
PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
2
JUDGE, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A,376,302 AND 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused
under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail
of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302
and 201 of IPC, registered in respondent – police station
Crime No.58/2016 and during investigation and while
filing the charge sheet, the offence under Section 376 of
IPC is also inserted in the case.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the
course of his arguments has submitted that looking to
3
the prosecution material, there is no prima-facie case
made out as against the petitioner herein. At the most,
the materials show that both the deceased as well as
the petitioner herein were desperate in life and hence,
they have consumed poison and it is not a murder by
the petitioner as alleged by the prosecution. He has
further submitted that in fact the petitioner wanted to
support his mother-in-law and that was the reason for
him to go and stay in the house of parental place of the
deceased. He has also submitted that as the
investigation is completed and charge sheet has been
filed, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may
be enlarged on bail.
4. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader, during the course of his arguments has
submitted that, looking to the prosecution material, the
deceased and the petitioner are the only persons, who
4
slept in the new house, leaving the children with the
mother-in-law of the petitioner in the old house. He has
also submitted that though the deceased as well as the
petitioner were said to have consumed the poison, but
as per the medical opinion the cause of death is not
consumption of poison, but it is because of the assault
made on the deceased. Hence, in view of these
materials placed on record, he submitted that petitioner
is not entitled to be released on bail.
5. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail
petition, FIR, complaint, so also, the charge sheet
material and other materials placed on record.
6. Looking to the complaint averments, it is no
doubt true that there are no eye-witnesses to the
incident, because even the complainant went to the said
house in the early morning at 6.00a.m. and thereafter,
with the help of the neighbours, they entered into the
5
said house and the case of the prosecution that both
were shifted to the hospital and on the way, the
deceased, who is the daughter of the complainant,
expired and the petitioner survived.
7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the couple were frustrated in life and
that may be the reason for consuming poison and it is
not a murder. I have perused the PM report. The
doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased, is of the opinion that cause of death is
due to blunt force impact on the head and neck.
Therefore, as per the PM report, the death is not
because of consumption of poison, but it is because of
the assault. Not only that, as per Section 106 of
Evidence Act, it is only the couple, who slept in the said
house. Therefore, those facts are exclusively within the
knowledge of the petitioner himself. Considering all
6
these aspects of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is
not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the
petitioner and to enlarge him on bail. Hence, the
petition is hereby rejected.
However, the observations made in the body of
this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this
petition and the learned Sessions Judge should not be
influenced by the above observations and he has to
dispose of the matter independently and in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSR