Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Sonu Poojary vs State By Karnataka on 8 April, 2022

                                     Crl.P.No.988/2022

                          1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2022

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.988/2022

BETWEEN:

SMT.SONU POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
W/O GAGAN PAL
R/AT BHEERESHWARA LADIES PG
NO.151/51, 1ST CROSS
DATTATREYA EXTENTION
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 018              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.ASHWATHAPPA D, ADV.)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 019

REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001              ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL   IN    S.C.NO.1180/2018   (CR.NO.44/2018)    OF
CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY OF THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 120B, 34 OF
IPC ON THE FILE OF THE 46TH ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
                                               Crl.P.No.988/2022

                              2



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE
THE FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Sri H.G.Manjunatha, Assistant Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru is present before the Court and submits the report of Chief Superintendent, Central Prison, Bengaluru.

2. This is the fifth successive bail petition of accused No.1 in S.C.No.1180/2018 on the file of XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city. The petitioner along with accused No.2 is facing trial in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

Victim Vijayamma had fostered the petitioner as her daughter. The petitioner and accused No.2 were in love with each other and decided to marry. Accused No.2 was in financial crisis. To overcome their financial crisis, the petitioner and accused No.2 conspired to commit the murder of Vijayamma. In execution of such Crl.P.No.988/2022 3 conspiracy on 13.03.2018 petitioner and accused No.2 trespassed into the house of the Vijayamma. The petitioner strangulated the victim with scarf and assaulted on her head with hammer. Accused No.2 assaulted Vijayamma with re-piece. Consequently, Vijayamma died.

4. The earlier three bail petitions of the petitioner were rejected on merits. One bail petition was withdrawn. Now the changed circumstance the petitioner is urging is that since more than 3 years she was not produced before the Court and even the charges are not framed in the case. Thus she claims that her liberty is snatched without the fair process of law.

5. The petitioner is arrested on 14.03.2018 and since then she is under detention. Her co-accused was granted bail by this Court on 11.06.2019 in Crl.P.No.7427/2018. As observed by this Court in the said bail petition, there is no reference to the earlier orders passed by this Court as against the petitioner. On getting bail, accused No.2 is absenting himself Crl.P.No.988/2022 4 before the trial Court and prolonging the matter. The trial Court exempting his appearance has been adjourning the matter, though the petitioner is in custody. The trial Court, to avoid further detention of the petitioner without trial, in all judicial discipline should have taken steps to secure the presence of accused No.2 to frame the charges.

6. The order sheet of the trial Court produced before this Court shows that the trial Court instead of extending the judicial custody of the petitioner for a limited period and directing the Jail authorities to produce her before the Court after such period, went on adjourning the matter under the caption "for appearance of the accused". Even the jail authorities have not taken any pain to seek any clarification from the Court in that regard. Between 24.06.2019 and 25.02.2021 no order for production of the petitioner before the Court was passed. Thereafter also the trial Court was irregular in passing the order for production of the petitioner before the Court.

5

7. This is a clear case of negligence both on the part of the trial Court and the jail authorities. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. There are in all 52 charge sheet witnesses. As reported by the trial Court itself, the matter is still pending for hearing before the Charge. Therefore, completion of the trial in the near future is bleak.

8. It may not be out of place to mention that if the petitioner's counsel did not argue on framing of charges, in view of Section 304 Cr.P.C. the trial Court could have taken steps to provide better legal assistance to her.

9. Keeping the accused in custody without fair trial infringes the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and that the petitioner is a woman, this Court finds it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

6

10. The petitioner is granted bail in S.C.No.1180/2018 on the file of the XLVI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru city subject to following conditions:

(i) Petitioner shall execute personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

(ii) She shall appear before the trial Court as and when required for the trial;

(iii) She shall not tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner; &

(iv) She shall not indulge into any criminal activities.

(v) She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission of the trial Court.

Registry shall communicate copy of the order to the trial Court and the concerned prison.

Sd/-

JUDGE Akc