Karnataka High Court
Rajesh vs State Of Karnataka on 24 March, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1429 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
RAJESH
SON OF MALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
OCC: ARCHAK IN A TEMPLE
R/AT.VATALU VILLAGE
T.NARSIPURA TALUK - 571 124
MYSORE DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.HASMATH PASHA, ADV.,)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY T.NARASIPURA POLICE STATION
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 124.
... 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.261/2013 OF T.NARASIPURA P.S.,
MYSORE DIST., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448, 323, 324,
354, 506, 315 R/W. 34 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.2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 506 r/w.Section 34 of IPC and registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.261/2013 and charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 354, 506 and 315 r/w.Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument submitted that the alleged date of incident is on 14-11-2013. The allegation of the prosecution that accused No.1 is having illicit connection with complainant - Vani. On 14-11-2013, the husband of Vani came from Mysore and he was abusing his wife in the house. But accused Nos.1 to 4 3 thinking that the husband of Vani is abusing them, came to the house of the complainant and picked up quarrel with the complainant and asked her husband and why he is abusing them, though the complainant informed them that her husband is abusing her not the accused persons and her husband is in bathroom taking bath. But inspite of that, accused persons said to have assaulted the complainant - Vani. Learned counsel made the submission that when she has firstly examined by the doctor after the alleged incident it is stated that she was carrying 2 months pregnancy. Learned counsel also made the submission that immediately after the alleged incident when the complaint was filed all the alleged offences were bailable. But the case of the prosecution that on 20-11- 2013, when the complainant was examined in the hospital at Mysore, it was opined that there is a miscarriage. Hence, learned counsel made the submission on the basis of this, the alleged offence under Section 315 of IPC was also inserted in the case. The counsel made the submission that regarding the 4 alleged miscarriage, the doctor opined that he cannot give any opinion as to the cause of the said miscarriage. Learned counsel made the submission when that is so, miscarriage may be because of some natural causes also and here in this case there is no materials placed by the prosecution to show that it is because of either the petitioner or any of the accused kicked the complainant and that is the reason for miscarriage. Counsel made the submission that even the alleged offence under Section 315 of IPC, is also not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. He made the submission that the present petitioner being the brother of accused No.1 has been falsely implicated in the case, even though there is no material placed against him. Hence, he submitted from the date of his arrest, petitioner is in custody. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed. By imposing any reasonable conditions, he may be admitted to bail. Learned counsel also made the submission that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are already released on bail.
5
4. As against this, learned Government Pleader during the course of his argument submitted that looking to the statement of witnesses they have stated that it is the present petitioner who kicked the complainant - Vani on her stomach and that is the reason for her miscarriage. Hence, he submitted that so far as alleged offence under Section 315 of IPC is concerned, prosecution has placed the material against the present petitioner, since the offence alleged is serious in nature. Hence, petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.
5. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. As stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that at the first instance the case was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons in respect of offences which are bailable in nature. But it is only after the alleged examination of Vani at Mysore, the police got inserted the alleged offence under Section 315 of IPC also. Looking to the 6 allegations of the prosecution it is alleged that the illicit relationship is between accused No.1 and Vani and present petitioner is totally unconnected with the alleged offences. It is the contention that he is falsely implicated in the case and he is ready to abide by any of the reasonable conditions to be imposed by this Court. Even looking to the opinion of the doctor with regard to the miscarriage, he has given his opinion that he cannot give the reasons for miscarriage. Therefore, looking to these materials on record and as the other accused persons were already granted with bail and investigation is completed and charge sheet has been filed, by imposing reasonable conditions to secure the present petitioner - accused No.2, before the trial Court, he can be admitted to bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
The petitioner - accused No.2 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 506 r/w.Section 34 of IPC and registered by the respondent - police in Crime No.261/2013 and 7 charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 354, 506 and 315 r/w.Section 34 of IPC, 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