Karnataka High Court
Narendra Babu vs State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2020
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3164 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Narendra Babu
Occ: Clerk at Adishakthi,
Patina Co-operative Society,
Bangalore
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Muniyappa,
R/at No.10 Near PES School,
SRS Peenya,
Bangalore. :PETITIONER
(By Sri Shankarappa S., Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka
By Vyalikaval P.S.
Rep. by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore-01. :RESPONDENT
(By Sri H.R.Showri, HCGP)
Crl.P.No.3164/2020
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime
No.151/2019 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code of Vyalikaval Police Station, Bengaluru
pending on the file of the 8th ACMM, at Bangalore, etc.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders through
Physical Hearing / Video Conferencing Hearing this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The present petitioner along with the other accused in crime No.151/2019 of Vyalikaval Police Station is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution allegation is that the accused being the husband of the deceased Vinutha had a long going family dispute with her which ultimately ripened into a matrimonial case. The present petitioner in order to get rid of his wife joined with other accused, hatched a Crl.P.No.3164/2020 3 criminal conspiracy to cause the death of Vinutha for which he offered a supari to accused Nos.2 and 3. As a result of the said conspiracy, the other accused executed their plan and caused the murder of deceased Vinutha on 20.12.2019.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments stated that the entire charge-sheet allegation goes to show that it is a story hatched by the prosecution only to harass the petitioner. The only major allegation against the accused is of conspiracy said to have been hatched by him but there are no materials placed by the prosecution to prima facie show that there is role of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire charge-sheet material may at the best rise the finger as against accused Nos.2 and 3 but not against the present petitioner. Merely because the petitioner being the husband of the deceased and he had a matrimonial dispute with his wife, the police at the instance of the complainant who is none else than Crl.P.No.3164/2020 4 the elder sister of the petitioner, have filed a false charge- sheet against him.
3. Per contra, learned HCGP while reiterating the contention taken up in his statement of objections submitted that there are strong materials to prove the alleged guilt against the petitioner to show that he had hatched the conspiracy to eliminate his wife. Undisputedly, there were several disputes including criminal case against the present petitioner instituted by the deceased, which also goes to show that everything was not well in their family and that the deceased was constantly being ill-treated and harassed by the petitioner. Learned HCGP further submitted that the seizure of the CC TV footage in the form of a pen-drive and a cell-phone from the possession of the petitioner also plays an important role. As such, in the instant case, since there is all the possibility of the accused tampering the prosecution witnesses, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Crl.P.No.3164/20205
4. A perusal of the charge-sheet at this stage and prima facie would go to show that though it elaborately discusses and places materials to show that there were other disputes between the present petitioner and his deceased wife Vinutha and they had a matrimonial case also pending in the Court, but the main allegation leveled against the present petitioner is the one punishable under Sections 109 and 120-B of IPC.
5. To substantiate the contention that the present petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy to take away the life of his wife, learned HCGP relied upon the recovery of the cell-phone of the petitioner and CC TV footage. Though the said seizure of cell-phone at the instance of the petitioner can be taken as material, however, how best the cell-phone could prove the alleged guilt against the accused particularly with respect to his alleged involvement in the commission of the crime and hatching a conspiracy would be the subject matter of trial. Crl.P.No.3164/2020 6
6. Admittedly at this stage there are no materials placed before this Court like the call details register and other relevant information to show that the petitioner had several communications or contacts with the other accused in hatching the criminal conspiracy. That being the case, the alleged involvement of the petitioner in the crime could be ascertained only in a full-fledged trial and also considering the fact that he is stated to be in judicial custody for more than eight months and the allegation made against him stands on a different footing compared to the other material accused persons, I am of the view that imposing stringent conditions, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed.
The petitioner - Narendra Babu who is accused in Crime No.151/2019 of Vyalikaval Police Station, pending on the file of 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Crl.P.No.3164/2020 7 Sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 read with Section 34 of IPC, is ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:
i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of `2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the enlarging Court.
ii) The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all the dates of hearing.
iii) Petitioner shall not hamper or tamper the prosecution witnesses and documents in any manner.
iv) Petitioner shall give in writing about the change in his address, if any, to the Trial Court as and when such change occurs and obtain acknowledgement in that regard.
Sd/-
JUDGE sac*