Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh S/O Yellappa Udrach vs The State Of Karntaka on 4 August, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200884/2016
Between
Venkatesh
S/o Yellappa Udrach
Age: 30 years
Occ: Begging
R/o Changol Tq. Tandoor
Dist. Rangareddy
...Petitioner
(By Sri Sharanabassapa K. Babshetty and
Smt. Umadevi S Babashetty, Advocates)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
Through Miriyan Police Station
Gulbarga.
...Respondent
(By Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., HCGP)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to release
the petitioner on bail in Crime No.25/2016 of Miriyan
Police Station, Chincholli Circle, which is registered for
2
the offences punishable under Sections 326(A), 307 of
IPC.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking his release on bail of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 326(A), 307 of IPC registered in respondent-Police Station Crime No.25/2016.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments that on 29.04.2016 at 1:15 p.m. the ASI of respondent police went to the Government hospital at Chincholi and recorded the statement of one Smt. Tukkamma W/o Shrishail Dasar, wherein she has stated that her marriage has been taken place about 6 years back. The complainant, her husband, her mother, her mother-in-law and brother-in- law were residing at Bombay and doing collie work. The accused-petitioner is also staying in the same locality 3 and they were met each other and knowing each other and he is also from their community. For the last two months the accused-petitioner is saying he will love the complainant and he is giving harassment to her and trying to outrage her modesty by touching her body parts and pulling her dress and thereby giving sexual harassment to her. Because of fear the complainant, her mother and her husband came to the village Kallur about 8 days prior to the incident. On 29.04.2016 at 8:00 p.m. when the complainant and her mother were going near Kallur bridge, at that time, the accused- petitioner came from front side. He was holding acid in a glass and thrown the acid on neck and chest of the complainant. The complainant sustained burn injuries. Then she was admitted to the hospital at Chincholi. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered against the present petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
4
4. The counsel for the petitioner made the submission that the husband of the complainant also made an attempt to commit rape on the wife of the present petitioner and in that connection complaint came to be lodged in the Court at Maharashtra. He submitted that he has produced the documents in that regard. It is his contention that because of such complaint was lodged against husband of the present petitioner, the petitioner lodged false complaint as a counter blast. It is also his contention that now the investigation of the case is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. The complainant is also discharged from the hospital. Hence, by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader made the submission that looking to the nature of the offence throwing of acid on neck and chest portion of the complainant is a very serious offence. The complainant sustained burn injuries on her chest and neck, which is evidenced by the medical certificate. The learned 5 Government Pleader further made the submission that though she has been discharged from the hospital but she is getting follow-up treatment in the hospital. Hence, he made the submission that as the petitioner made an attempt to commit the murder of the complainant by throwing acid on her, he is not entitled to be granted with bail.
6. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR., complaint, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge Kalaburagi. So also I have perused the documents produced by the petitioner, which are in Marathi language regarding the contention of the petitioner that as the husband of the present complainant made an attempt to commit rape on the wife of the present petitioner as case was registered in the Maharashtra Court.
7. Looking to the complaint averments it goes to show that there was acquaintance between the complainant family and the family of the present petitioner when they were working at Bombay. The 6 further allegations in the complaint goes to show that the present petitioner tried to pull her and he was asking her for the sexual advances and because of these reasons they were afraid. The complainant, her husband and other family members came to Kallur village and started reside at Kallur village. It was 8 days prior to the present incident. Further the case of the complainant that herself and her mother went to answer the second call of nature nearby the bridge and after answering the second call of nature they were coming back. She was little ahead of her mother at that time the present petitioner came from the front side who was having acid in a glass and thrown on the complainant mainly on the neck and chest portion and she sustained burn injuries because of the acid. I have also perused the injury certificate. The doctor issued the injury certificate stating that there are burn injuries on the complainant. The injuries are grievous in nature. It is also mentioned the said injuries on the neck and chest portion. It is no doubt true the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. But only 7 because of that reason it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Looking to the nature and gravity and seriousness of the offence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and release him on bail.
Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu CT-SI