Karnataka High Court
Smt Shashikala @ Sumathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1134 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
SMT.SHASHIKALA @ SUMATHI
W/O.RAJANNA
AGE 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3, 6TH CROSS
SHILPA NILAYA, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 032.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.H.R.ANANTHAKRISHNA, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SAMPIGEHALLI
POLICE STATION
BANGALORE
REPDT. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.14/2014 OF SAMPIGEHALLI P.S.,
BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 144,
147, 148, 427, 447, 436, 435 R/W. 149 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
This is the petition filed by the petitioner - accused No.11 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 427, 447, 436, 435 r/w.Section 149 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.14/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - accused No.11 and also the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that in the complaint, name of the present petitioner is not figured. He also made the submission that in the remand application it is mentioned by the Investigating Officer that even wife of accused No.1 i.e., present petitioner is also involved in the case and complainant has given the further statement in this regard. Learned counsel made the 3 submission that even looking to the further statement also there is no mention of the name of the present petitioner. Hence, he submitted that without there being any offence, the present petitioner has been arrested by the respondent - police. The counsel also made the submission that petitioner is innocent and not involved in the commission of the alleged offences and nothing has been seized from the present petitioner. Since from the date of arrest, she is in custody and she is having a small kid. Hence, by imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner may be admitted to bail.
4. As against this, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that even with regard to participation of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences, there is a material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation. He made the submission that the present petitioner along with other accused persons participated in the alleged act and they 4 have demolished whole school building and even they have burnt the school building and caused loss. Hence, he submitted that these allegations are serious in nature. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, remand application copy, further statement of the complainant and statement of other witnesses produced in the case and I have also perused the order passed b y the lower Court on the bail application of the present petitioner. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the complaint name of the present petitioner is not mentioned that she was also one of the accused person involved in the commission of the alleged offences. It is no doubt true when mentioning some of the names of the accused persons, it is also mentioned some other 20 persons. But only on the basis of this, it cannot be said that the present petitioner involved in the commission of the alleged offences. Ultimately, this is a matter of proof. 5 Looking to the remand application, wherein the Investigating Officer has mentioned that the complainant gave further statement stating that the present petitioner was also involved in the commission of the alleged offences. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the further statement recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. Even perusing the said statement the name of the petitioner is not at all mentioned that she was also involved in the commission of the alleged offences. The petitioner is in custody since from the date of her arrest and in the remand application she told that she will go to the police station along with her kid. So this also goes to show that petitioner is having a small child and she is a woman. The offences alleged are exclusively not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. By imposing any reasonable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The petitioner - accused No.11 is ordered to be released 6 on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 141, 143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 427, 447, 436, 435 r/w.Section 149 of IPC registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.14/2014, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the concerned Court;
(ii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper with any of the prosecution witnesses;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE VMB