Karnataka High Court Surya Naik @ Suresh Naik vs The State By P.S.I on 20 May, 2014Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1692 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SURYA NAIK @ SURESH NAIK
S/O. TAKYA NAIK
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O. SEVANAGAR – 583 131
(BY SRI. S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE STATE BY P.S.I
HALAVAGALU POLICE STATION
RPTD. BY S.P.P
BANGALORE – 560 001
(BY SRI. B.VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME.NO.214/2013 OF HALAWAGALU P.S., DAVANAGERE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.C.J., (JR.DN.) AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI, DAVANAGERE DIST., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 306 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
2. The present petitioner is said to be the husband of the deceased Asha Bai, who was married to the petitioner seven years prior to the complaint and they had two children and she was pregnant for the third time. It transpires that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the father of the deceased that the petitioner had ill-treated Asha Bai and unable to bear the torture and ill-treatment, she had committed suicide, and she had administered insecticide to young children, of whom one died and the other survived. It is in this background and on the basis of the allegations made by the father of the deceased that the petitioner has been taken into custody and a charge sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is in this background that the petitioner had approached the Court below seeking -3-
enlargement on bail, which the Court below has rejected, on the ground that there was prima facile material for commission of the alleged offences by the petitioner.
3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and Asha Bai were living with their children away from the father of the deceased. The father of the deceased, out of pain and frustration, had thought it fit to make allegations against the petitioner. It was his strong suspicion that it was the petitioner who administered insecticide to Asha Bai and children and that unable to bear the torture, which was continuously over the years, that Asha Bai was driven to commit suicide. It is not in dispute that the marriage of the petitioner and Asha Bai was more than seven years old and was pregnant with the third child.
4. It is contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner is guilty of the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. -4-
In the circumstances of the case and prays for dismissal of the petition.
5. There ought to have been further incriminating circumstances beyond the allegations made by the father-in-law of the petitioner. Therefore, merely invocation of the provisions of law, by itself, would not establish the case against the petitioner. It is necessary to prove that the petitioner has committed the offences beyond all reasonable doubt and not merely on the basis of suspicion and allegations. Consequently, the petitioner has made out a case for enlargement of bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with one surety for a likesum to the satisfaction of the Court below.
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer.
(iv) The petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.
(v) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.