SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Umesha vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 July, 2019

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2019

BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1495/2019
Between:

Umesha
S/o. Late Shivalingaiah
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.53, 4th Floor,
1st Cross, Byraveshwaranagar,
Mysuru 570 001.
Permanently residing at
No.267, Behind Government,
ITI College, NES Layout,
Malavalli Town,
Mandya District 571 430. … Petitioner

(By Sri. M. R. Nanjunda Gowda, Advocate)

And:

The State of Karnataka
By Metagalli Police Station,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru 560 001. … Respondent

(By Sri S. Rachaiah, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of the
Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in
Spl.C.No.433/2018 (Crime No.137/2018) of Metagalli Police
Station, for the offences p/u/s 498A, 302 of SectionIPC and
Sections 3(2)(va) of SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
2

SectionAmendment Act, 2015 pending on the file of the Hon’ble VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru.

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

ORDER

Notice issued to the complainant has been served.

2. The petitioner is seeking to be enlarged on

bail in connection with his detention pursuant to the

proceedings in Crime No.137/2018 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and Section302 of IPC and

Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and SectionScheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the

complaint was filed by the father of the victim on

30.08.2018. It is alleged that the petitioner was

harassing the victim for dowry. It is further stated that

the petitioner was an alcoholic and used to abuse the

complainant’s daughter physically. It is stated that the

complainant received information from his son’s
3

friend that the petitioner had killed the complainant’s

daughter. In light of the said incident, a complaint came

to be filed. Pursuant to the same, FIR is registered,

investigation is complete and charge sheet has been

filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner states

that the version of the prosecution as made out in the

charge sheet is not tenable. It is stated that the case

rests on circumstantial evidence, as none has witnessed

the commission of offence.

5. It is stated that the reliance on the

statement of CW-10 who is alleged to have seen the

petitioner coming out of the house on the morning of

30.08.2018 would not by itself justify the imputation

sought to be made in the charge sheet.

6. Taking note of the fact that the case rests on

circumstantial evidence, as there is no witness who has
4

seen the commission of offence, the proof of offence is a

matter for trial. Where the case rests on proof of

circumstantial evidence and the petitioner is seeking to

be enlarged on bail, the case needs to be treated

differently as compared to a case where a witness has

seen the commission of the offence.

7. In light of the above facts and also noticing

that the petitioner is in custody since 4.9.2018 and that

he is an employee of KPTCL, the petitioner is entitled to

be enlarged on bail.

8. In the result, the bail petition filed by the

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

the petitioner is enlarged on bail in Crime No.137/2018

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

Section302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes

and SectionScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015, subject to the following

conditions:-

5

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

(ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate for
the expeditious disposal of the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with
evidence, influence in any way any
witness.

(iv) In the event of change of address, the
petitioner to inform the same to the
concerned SHO.

(v) Any violation of the aforementioned
conditions by the petitioner, shall
result in cancellation of bail.

Any observation made herein shall not be taken as

an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Sd/-

JUDGE
VGR

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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