Karnataka High Court
Kumari Shwetha vs State Of Karnataka By on 30 January, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
Crl.P.No.7649/2013
BETWEEN:
KUMARI SHWETHA,
D/O RAVIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
VASANTHAMMA RENT HOUSE,
3RD CROSS, JAKKASANDRA,
BANGALORE-560 068. ... PETITIONER
(BY R.V.RAJASHEKARA, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY H.S.R. LAYOUT POLICE,
BANGALORE CITY-560 068. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 CR.P.C. TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN CR.NO.436/2013 OF HSR LAYOUT P.S.,
BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SECTION
302, 364 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-A5 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her release on bail of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 364 read with Section 34 of IPC registered in the respondent-HSR Police Station in Crime No.436/2013.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that on 22.8.2013 at about 2.30 A.M. one Prashanth S/o.Sai Kumar appeared before the respondent-police and gave a written complaint stating that the complainant was working as a salesman at Tata Docomo Office at Shankarappa Complex at Jakkasandra. On 21.8.2013 at about 6.00 P.M. his colleague requested him to accompany him for a snack at HSR Layout KFC restaurant. The complainant and Shivashankar Reddy went in a Black Pulsar vehicle. After parking the vehicle Shivashankar Reddy told the complainant that he is expecting his girl friend to come. They were standing in front of KFC restaurant talking to 3 each other. At that time a girl aged about 20-22 years in white chudidhar came there. Shivashankar Reddy and the girl were talking to each other. At that time, at about 7.20 P.M. the complainant received a call on his mobile number by his friend and he just turned around walking a few steps to speak back and found that both the girl and Shivashankar Reddy were not found there. Thereafter, suddenly he saw Shivashankar Reddy being forcibly made to board an autorickshaw. Along with him the complainant saw one young person aged about 20 years having medium whitish complexion also getting into the auto and proceeding towards Mangammanapalya. The complainant was confused and went to his room at Venkatapura to find out whether Shivashankar Reddy had come there. He was not found there. Thereafter, the complainant went to his office and contacted one Manju his roommate over phone, who came to his office and the complainant told him about the incident. Thereafterwards, after 5 to 10 minutes Shivashankar Reddy came to the Office. There 4 was blood in his left arm. He was looking tired and was bleeding. When the complainant enquired him he told him that the friends of that girl assaulted him. The complainant gave water to him, but he vomited. Thereafter, they took him to the hospital situated above their office. The doctor advised to take him to another hospital. Immediately, he was taken to Green View Hospital. The doctor there gave him treatment and on his advise he was taken to St. John's Hospital in an ambulance. However, Shivashankar Reddy, died. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner and other accused persons.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she is not at all involved in the 5 commission of offence and she has been falsely implicated in the case and at the instance of the respondent-Police. There is no prima-facie material placed by the prosecution insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. Investigation of the case is already completed and charge sheet has been filed in the matter and hence by imposing any reasonable conditions, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.
5. As against this, the learned Government Pleader during the course of arguments submitted that the prosecution has placed material to show the involvement of the present petitioner also in the commission of the alleged offense and hence, he submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
7. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, the complainant and the order passed by the lower Court on the bail application and also the charge sheet material. The charge sheet material goes 6 to show that the petitioner was having illicit intimacy with the deceased Shivashankar Reddy and thereafter six months earlier to this incident, A-1 started to have illicit intimacy with the present petitioner-Shwetha and even the engagement ceremony of A-1 and the petitioner was performed. Further, the material produced also shows that when A-1 and the petitioner were talking to each other, the petitioner received a phone call from Shivashankar Reddy and on enquiring, A-1 learnt that it was the phone call of Shivashankar Reddy. Then A-1 became very angry and asked the petitioner to secure him to a particular place and he will teach him a lesson. Thereafterwards the deceased as well as the complainant went to the restaurant. The material produced also goes to show that at that time one lady wearing white chudidhar i.e., the present petitioner came there and an autorickshaw also came there and the petitioner took the deceased Shivashankar Reddy with the help of another person forcibly who had come in the said autorickshaw and thereafter when 7 Shivashankar Reddy came back, he had sustained bleeding injuries on his body and ultimately, he succumbed to the injuries. The Investigating Officer has seized the mobile phones of the deceased and the present petitioner-Shwetha during the course of investigation. The present petitioner when interrogated gave her voluntary statement which shows that she took the I.O. to the place where she had asked deceased Shivashankar Reddy to come and the place from where she had forcibly taken him in an autorickshaw. Looking to the material on record, the I.O. has also recorded the statement of the owner of the autorickshaw. He has also clearly stated that A-1 and the petitioner had hired the autorickshaw and even he has stated about the accused persons forcibly taking the deceased into his autorickshaw, assaulting him and causing bleeding injuries on his body. Thus the materials collected during the investigation prima-facie goes to show the involvement of the present petitioner also in the commission of the alleged offences and there are 8 reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner committed the alleged offense. Further, the offences under Section 302 of IPC is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The materials also goes to show primafacie that earlier deceased was having illicit intimacy with the present petitioner, accused No.5 and thereafter A-1 also had illicit intimacy with the petitioner, which is the motive as per the case of the prosecution. Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE *alb/-