Karnataka High Court Sri. Suresh Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2014Author: Budihal R.B.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1184 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O YADAHALLI VILLAGE
KOLAR TALUK & DISTRICT-563101
(BY SRI.RAGHAVENDRA K, ADV.,)
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KOLAR RURAL POLICE
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.421/2013 OF KOLAR RURAL P.S., KOLAR, AND IN S.C.NO.3/14 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.C.J., (SR.DN.) AND CJM, KOLAR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 302 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER
This is the petition 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 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in the respondent – police station Crime No.421/2013.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Accused and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that the prosecution has not placed the prima facie material to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. He submitted that it is a definite 3
case of the prosecution that the deceased was administered poison along with the food and it was thrusted into her mouth forcibly. Counsel made the submission that looking to the materials said to have been collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation, at one stretch prosecution is making out the case that the poison was injected to the deceased and thereby caused her death. Learned counsel made the submission that the case of the prosecution is self contradictory and no material is placed with regard to the cause of death of the deceased. Looking to the postmortem report, the counsel made the submission that the doctor who made the postmortem has not given his opinion and reserved his opinion for the finding of the FSL. Hence, he submitted that till now, the FSL has not at all given its report and he submitted that since from the date of arrest, the petitioner is in custody and by imposing any reasonable conditions he may be admitted to bail.
4. As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that prosecution has placed the material by way of recording the statements of witnesses who have stated that the petitioner along with other accused persons administered the poison to the deceased in the food and because of this poisoning in that food, it was thrusted into the mouth of the deceased, death was caused. He made the submission that the material placed on record goes to show that the death of the deceased is because of the poison. Therefore, he submitted that there is a prima facie material placed as against the present petitioner that he has committed the murder of the deceased by administering poison to her. Hence, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR., complaint and also other materials placed on record.
6. Looking to the complaint averments, at the first instance, the allegations are also made against the parents of the present petitioner that they have also given the ill-treatment to the deceased in connection with dowry amount and harassed her. But, subsequently, at the time of filing the charge sheet, the names of the parents of the present petitioner were deleted and the case is confined to the present petitioner and looking to the statement of witness, they have stated that in the food by mixing the poison, it was thrusted into the mouth of the deceased and thereby caused the death of the deceased. But, the prosecution material also goes to show that the Investigating Officer has seized the material to show that she was given the poison and was injected into her body and the syringe was seized at the spot. So, this goes to show that it is 6
quiet contrary to the very case of the prosecution that the poison was mixed into the food and it was thrusted into the mouth of the deceased. Regarding the cause of death, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination kept his opinion pending till the receipt of the FSL report. When the matter was come up for hearing two to three times, the learned HCGP was directed to secure the FSL report and to produce in the case. Inspite of giving such instruction, the HCGP was not able to secure the FSL report and to produce before the Court. He simply produced the letter dated 14.03.2014 that the matter is posted for hearing and hence, immediately furnish the FSL opinion. But, inspite giving sufficient opportunity, prosecution was not able to produce FSL report to know what is the cause of death of the deceased. In the bail petition, it is contended by the petitioner that he is innocent and not committed the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, looking to the prosecution material and they are not consistent with 7
each other, I am of the opinion that as the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed, by imposing stringent conditions to secure the petitioner before the Trial Court he can be admitted to bail.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Petitioner-accused is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under sections 498A, 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act registered in the respondent – police station Crime No.421/2013 subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner-Accused has to execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and to furnish one solvent
surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. (ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.
(iii) The petitioner has to appear before the concerned Court regularly.