Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mangalagowry vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 September, 2017
Author: Rathnakala
Bench: Rathnakala
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6281/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.MANGALAGOWRY
S/O NAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/A HEDEYALA VILLAGE
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 314.
2. BASAVARAJU
S/O BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/AT GOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 314. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.A.CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 314.
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP.)
-2-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL
IN CR.NO.136/2017 OF HULLAHALLI POLICE STATION, MYSURU
DISTRICT, WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
302 AND 201 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
2. The petitioners are in judicial custody in Cr.No.136/2017 registered by the respondent-police. During the pendency of the petition, charge sheet is submitted to the Court against both of them in respect of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
3. The allegation is, the accused person 1 and 2 had an affair with each other for the last two years which resulted in the 1st petitioner conceiving and delivering a female child on 8.5.2017. Having given birth to the child prior to marriage, the 1st petitioner banged the head of -3- the child to the wall and the child was done to death. She handed over the dead body to the 2nd accused for disposal. Accordingly, he disposed of the body in a pit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is material contradiction within the case of the prosecution. The dead body of the child was subjected for post mortem after four days from its birth. As per the prosecution case, on the very day of its birth, the child was murdered. It was a natural death of the child immediately after its birth. None of the family members have lodged complaint against the accused. The medical evidence cannot be believed at this stage. The petitioners had no motive to kill the child since both families are even now waiting to celebrate their marriage. The petitioners are without criminal antecedents and they are permanent residents of the cause title address. They are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. -4-
5. Learned Government Pleader while opposing the petition submits that the dead body of the child was found on 9.5.2017 and the post mortem was conducted on 10.5.2017. The 1st petitioner-1st accused was also subjected to medical examination and it is proved that she had recently delivered the child. Without any reason, they have killed the child. Hence, they are not entitled for bail.
6. Perused the charge sheet papers. The role attributed to the 2nd petitioner-2nd accused is, destroying the evidence by disposing of the dead body, thus committing offence under Section 201 of IPC. As far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, the submission made is that she disputes the post mortem report as to the cause of death.
7. Having regard to the fact that these petitioners are deep rooted in the Society and permanent residents of the cause title address and their presence can be secured before the Court on the hearing dates, there is no impediment to allow the petition.
-5-
The petition is allowed. Petitioners are enlarged on bail in Crime No.136/2017 of respondent-police, subject to the following conditions:
(i) They shall execute a self bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one separate surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.
(ii) They shall attend the Court regularly on all hearing dates.
(iii) They shall not threaten the prosecution witnesses.
Sd/-
JUDGE Dvr: