Bangalore District Court
Nagaraja vs State By Vidhyaranyapura on 28 June, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XLV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH46)
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
PRESENT:
Sri. Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh,
B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B.(Spl.)
XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
CRL.MISC. No.4969/2021
Petitioner Nagaraja
S/o Ramalingegowda
A/a 30 Yrs.,
R/a No.59, 2nd Floor,
I Cross, Kempanna Layout,
Doddabommasandra,
Vidhyaranyapura,
Bangalore560 097.
(By Sri E. Gowrishankar,
Advocate)
AND
Respondent State by Vidhyaranyapura
P.S., Bengaluru.
(By the learned Public
Prosecutor)
2
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
ORDER ON BAIL PETITION FILED U/S.439 OF
Cr.P.C.
The advocate for petitioner has filed bail petition
U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. to release him on bail consequent
upon his remand to judicial custody in the case
registered against him by the respondent Police on
the complaint of Sri Manjuntha.B. R., A/a 42 Yrs.,
Special Tahasildhar, Yelahanka Taluq, Bangalore
City for the offence punishable U/s.304B and 302
r/w Sec.34 of IPC in their Crime No.63/2021(CC
No.12632/2021) in the interest of justice.
2.The brief facts of prosecution case is that the
marriage between accused and deceased
Smt.Vanajakshi was solemnized on 3.5.2020. After
marriage deceasedSmt.Vanajakshi had been to her
matrimonial house. The accused subjected her to
mental and physical cruelty in demand of dowry, and
on 11.03.2021 in between and 10.25 a.m. and 12.45
p.m. the deceasedSmt. Vanajakshi was found
3
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
hanging in her bedroom to window bar by veil. In the
complaint it is alleged that while conducting
procedural U/s.174(3)(iii)(iv) Cr.P.C., in UDR
No.17/2021, and conducting inquest mahazar
U/s.176 of Cr.P.C., the father, mother and sister of
deceasedSmt. Vanajakshi have given statements
before the Tahasildar that the accused had killed the
deceasedSmt. Vanajaksi and later tied her with
dupatta(Veil) to the bedroom window and left without
locking the door. Sri Manjunath.B.R., Special
Tahasildar, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore City had
filed complaint before the respondent police. The
respondent police have registered a case against the
accused/petitioners and other in FIR No.63/2021 for
the offence punishable U/s.304B and 302 r/w Sec.34
of IPC. The respondent police arrested the petitioner
on 13.03.2021 and produced before the jurisdictional
4
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
magistrate, where he was remanded to judicial
custody.
3.The petitioner claims innocence and contend
that he has been falsely implicated in the said case
and further contended that the charge sheet is
already filed, and he is not required for any further
custodial interrogation. He is ready to abide by any
conditions that would be imposed by this court
therefore the petitioner has prayed for allowing this
petition.
4.Learned Public prosecutor was notified of the
petition and the learned Public Prosecutor files
objection to this bail petition in detail by submitting
that this petition is not maintainable in law or on
facts and for the reasons stated in the objection she
has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5.Heard the arguments of the counsel for the
petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor on
5
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
the bail petition. I have perused the relevant
materials on record. Now the points that arise for
my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner has
made out sufficient grounds for his
release on bail at this stage as
prayed for?
2. What order?
6. After hearing the arguments of both the parties
and on considering the relevant materials on record,
my findings on the above points are hereunder:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1: On considering the papers on
record, it is evident to note that the respondent police
have registered case against the petitioner and others
in crime No.63/2021(CC No.12632/2021) for the
offence punishable U/s.304B and 302 r/w Sec.34 of
6
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
IPC. As per the FIR/Charge sheet petitioner is
accused No.1. And after completion of the
investigation the respondent police have submitted
charge sheet against the petitioner/accused only
before XLI Addl., CMM., Court, Bangalore for the
offences punishable u/s.498A and 304B of IPC.
The petitioner/accused was arrested on 13.03.2021,
and produced him before the concerned Magistrate
and was remanded to judicial custody.
8.It is alleged that the the marriage between
accused and deceasedSmt.Vanajakshi was
solemnized on 3.5.2020. After marriage deceased
Smt.Vanajakshi had been to her matrimonial house.
The accused subjected her to mental and physical
cruelty in demand of dowry, and on 11.03.2021 in
between and 10.25 a.m. and 12.45 p.m. the
deceasedSmt. Vanajakshi was found hanging in her
bedroom to window bar by veil. In the complaint it is
7
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
alleged that while conducting procedural U/s.174(3)
(iii)(iv) Cr.P.C., in UDR No.17/2021, and conducting
inquest mahazar U/s.176 of Cr.P.C., the father,
mother and sister of deceasedSmt. Vanajakshi have
given statements before the Tahasildar that the
accused had killed the deceasedSmt. Vanajaksi and
later tied her with dupatta(Veil) to the bedroom
window and left without locking the door.
Accordingly. the complaint is lodged before the
respondent police.
9.The contention of petitioner is that he is
innocent of the offences alleged and there is
absolutely no case made out against him for the
alleged offences. Per contra the learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted the charge sheet is already
filed against the petitioner, at this stage if the
petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, there is a
chance that he would tamper the prosecution
8
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
witnesses and might abscond. Further it is
contended that before the fullfledge trail of the case
on merit, petitioner/accused cannot be considered as
innocent, when a serious allegation and a charge is
filed for the heinous offence committed by the
petitioner/accused.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
argued that charge sheet is already filed and
question of retaining the petitioner/accused in
judicial custody without any reason does not arise
from the facts and circumstances of this case. On the
other hand the learned Public Prosecutor has
contended and argued that petitioner/accused being
the husband of deceased has subjected her physical
and mental cruelty by demanding additional dowry
and had committed heinous offence puishable
U/s.304B of IPC. The respondent police after
completion of investigation had filed a charge sheet
9
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
alleging the involvement of the petitioner/accused in
committing the alleged offence U/s.498A and 304B of
IPC. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the bail petition
of petitioner.
11.On enlightening the entire complaint
pleadings and the charge sheet filed against the
petitioner/accused prima facie discloses that the
petitioner/accused has subjected deceased to
physical and mental cruelty in demand of additional
dowry and has committed heinous offence
punishable Us/.304B of IPC. The learned Public
Prosecutor has submitted that at this stage if
petitioner/accused is enlarged on bail, there is a
chance that he might tamper the prosecution
witness, and abscond from trial. It is vehemently
argued by the learned public prosecutor the
petitioner/accused has committed heinous offence
against the women and society. Per contra the
10
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that
charge sheet is already filed and now the police
interrogation of the accused is not required, hence,
he is entitle for bail.
12.On considering the arguments of both the
sides and perusing the materials on record, it is
found that a grievous allegation U/s.304B of IPC has
been charged against the petitioner/accused.
Further it is found that at this stage if the
petitioner/accused is released on bail, there is every
chance that he might tamper the prosecution witness
and abscond from the trial. Moreover, the
prosecution papers on record clearly goes to show
that there is prima facie case made out against the
petitioner/accused for the offence punishable
U/s.304B of IPC, which is though not punishable
with death, but it is punishable with imprisonment of
not less than 7 years, but which may extend to
11
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
imprisonment for life and triable by this Court. The
contention of the petitioner/accused that he is entitle
for bail on the ground that charge sheet is already
filed and he is not required for custodial interrogation
cannot be considered at this stage of the case. I
would like to rely on the ruling reported in (2017) 5
Supreme Court cases 406(Virupakshappa Gouda
and another V., State of Karnataka and another)
wherein it is held that
"Filing of chargesheet does not in any
manner lessen allegations but rather
establishes that after due investigation
prosecution has filed chargesheet for
trial of accused persons. Filing of
charge sheet does not amount changing
circumstances."
13.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held
that
12
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
"Bail application cannot be allowed
solely or exclusively on ground that
fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence is that accused is
presumed to be innocent until found
guilty by competent court nor on basis of
certain observation made in different
context - There must be application of
mind, appreciation of factual score and
understanding of pronouncements in
field - Bail cannot be granted in
arbitrary or fanciful manner - Where bail
is granted taking into consideration
irrelevant materials and keeping or
relevant considerations, such order
becomes vulnerable warranting
annulment."
At this stage, I would also like to refer the
principles relating to grant or refusing of bail stated
in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V., Rajesh Ranjan
(2004) 7 SCC 528: 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977. In para
13
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
11 of the said judgment the Court has held that while
granting bail the Court should exercise its
discretion in a judicial manner and not a matter
of coerce. It is also necessary for the Court
granting bail to consider.
(a) The nature of accusation and the severity of
punishment in case of conviction and the nature
of supporting evidence.
(b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant,
(c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in
support of the charge, as a dictum of law laid down
in Ram Govind Upadhyay V. Sudarshan Singh
(2002) 3 SCC 598: 2002 SCC (Cri) 688 that
"Grant of bail though being a discretionary
order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a
14
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
discretion in a judicious manner and not as a
matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any
cogent cannot be sustained.
The principles governing the grant of bail were
reiterated by a two judge Bench in Prasanta Kumar
Sarkar V. Ashis Chatterjee; (2010) 14 SCC 496:
(AIR 2011 SC 274)
9....It is trite that this Court does not,
normally, interfere with an order passed
by the High Court granting or rejecting
bail to the accused. However, it is
equally incumbent upon the High Court
to exercise its discretion judiciously,
cautiously, and strictly in compliance
with the basis principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of this Court on the
point. It is well settled that, amount
other circumstances, the factors to be
borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are:
15
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
(i)Whether there is any prima facie or
reasonable ground to believe that the
accused committed the offence;
(ii)nature and gravity of the accusation;
(iii)severity of the punishment in the
event of conviction;
(iv) danger of the accused absconding or
fleeing, if released on bail;
(v)character, behaviour, means, position
and standing of the accused;
(vi)likelihood of the offence being
repeated;
(vii)danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail.
14.In the instant case while applying the dictum
of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with
the fact of the case, it is crystal clear that at this
stage the petitioner/accused has not made out valid
ground to enlarge him on bail.
15. Further as per the materials on record it is
clear that the petitioner was sent to judicial custody
16
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
on 13.03.2021, and he is in judicial custody for a
period of three months and 15 days is not a valid
ground to grant bail in his favour at this stage as per
the reasons and discussions made above. There is
absolutely no any special ground made out by the
petitioner to grant bail to him as sought for in the
petition. Hence, this bail petition does not merit
consideration on the facts of the case and also in law.
Considering the gravity and seriousness of the
offences alleged against him the petitioner is not
entitled for the relief as sought. Accordingly, I
answer point No.1 in the negative.
16. Point No.2: In view of answer of this Court
on point No.1, this court proceed to pass the
following:
17
Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021
ORDER
The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.439 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed. (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 28th day of June, 2021) (Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
18Crl.Misc.No.4969/2021 Order pronounced in the open court vide its separate order ORDER The bail petition filed by the petitioner U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
(Abdul Rahim Husain Shaikh) XLV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.