Karnataka High Court
Sri Ravikiran K G vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 July, 2020
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2996/2020
BETWEEN
SRI RAVIKIRAN K.G.,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
S/O GANGAIAH
RESIDENT OF KALLIPALYA VILLAGE
MASKAL POST
GULURU HOBLI
TUMKUR DISTRICT-577 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.B. MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HEBBUR POLICE STATION
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT
REP BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 438
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
TH EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN UDR.6/2020 OF HEBBUR P.S.
TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 174C OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short 'Cr.P.C.) for granting anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 18.02.2010, one T.S.Hemavathy (deceased) is said to have committed suicide and her body was found floating in a lake; the respondent Hubbur Police have visited the spot, recovered the dead body and at the time of conducting inquest panchanama, Bhagyamma, the mother of the deceased gave a statement before the Police, suspecting that this petitioner is connected with the death of Hemavathy. The Police have registered UDR 6/2020 and thereafter, they were making hectic efforts to arrest this petitioner for having committed non-bailable offence. The petitioner is reasoned to believe and he is apprehending his arrest in the hands of Police for having committed non-bailable offence. Therefore, the petitioner approached the District 3 & Sessions Court, Tumkur, in Crl.Misc.No.282/2020, which came to be rejected. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a Lineman working in BESCOM, Tumkur. His cousin Lokesh married to the deceased Hemavathy and due to some dispute between the husband and the wife, the deceased herself telephoned and told her husband that the vehicle will be parked near the lake and then she will not be available. Thereafter, the dead body of Hemavathy was found floating in the lake. The Police are trying to arrest this petitioner only on the ground of suspicion. There is no complaint made by her husband and the Police have also not registered any FIR against this petitioner, but only on the vague statement of the mother of the victim, the Police are trying to arrest this petitioner. If he is arrested and remanded to judicial custody, he will be put to hardship and irreparable loss and he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, prayed for grant of bail.
4
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader objected the bail petition and contended that there is no FIR registered against this petitioner however, the whereabouts of this petitioner is not known. He is required for the purpose of enquiry and he is absconding since the date of offence. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
5. Upon hearing the arguments and perusal of the records, which shows that the body of the deceased Hemavathy was found floating in Devara Aminikere lake. The Police after visiting the spot removed the dead body from the lake and the body was identified by Bhagyamma, the mother of the deceased. The said Bhagyamma has given a statement that the petitioner-accused Ravikiran used to contact her daughter through mobile phone. Therefore, she has suspected that the accused might be responsible for the death of Hemavathy. After recording the statement, the Police registered UDR 6/2020 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. and even after the Post Mortem, the cause of death was not revealed and as per the submission 5 made by learned High Court Government Pleader, the viscera of the deceased have been sent to FSL and the report is awaited till September 2020. Learned High Court Government Pleader is also not able to produce any material before this Court to show as to what was the further investigation done by the Police or the material collected against this accused for the last five months in order to show that this petitioner is involved in causing the death of the deceased Hemavathy. Even there is no concrete evidence to show that whether the death of Hemavathy was homicidal or suicidal. Such being the case, at this stage, the Court cannot presume that the petitioner has committed any offence nevertheless punishable under Section 302 of IPC. At the most, if the said Hemavathy has committed suicide due to any abetment of this petitioner, it may attract the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, which is not punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that registering the FIR is not sine quo non for granting anticipatory bail. 6
6. The petitioner is said to be the BESCOM employee and the permanent resident of Tumkur District. The suspicion however grave may be that cannot find a place of proof. Absolutely there is no material to show the involvement of this petitioner in the death of the deceased Hemavathy at this stage. Therefore, by imposing certain condition, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, the following:
Order The Criminal Petition is allowed.
The respondent-Police is directed to release the petitioner-accused on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with UDR 6/2020 on the complaint of Bhagyamma, subject to the following conditions;
i) The petitioner shall be released on bail on executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with a surety for the likesum.7
ii) The petitioner shall appear voluntarily before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iii) The petitioner shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer for the purpose of enquiry/investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE mv