Sri Ranganatha T vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2015

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Ranganatha T vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2015

Bench: L. Narayana Swamy

                             1


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2015

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY

                  CRL.P. NO. 3522 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

      SRI RANGANATHA T
      SON OF SRI.THIMAPPA,
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
      R/O ADAVISINGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
      HSADURGA TALUK,
      CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
                                            ... PETITIONER

      (By Sri MUJTABA H, ADV.)

AND

      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REP. BY THE HOSADURGA POLICE STATION,
      CHITRADURGA.
                                      ... RESPONDENT

      (BY SRI B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP)

                            ***

      CRL.P FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETR. ON BAIL IN CR.
NO.330/2014 OF HOSADURGA P.S., CHITRADURGA DIST., FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC.THE PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE, CHITRADURGA HAS REJECTED THE BAIL
APPLICATION ON 17.4.2015 IN CRL. MISC. NO.S.C.NO.15/15.

      THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                              2




                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondent

- State.

2. Petitioner is accused No.1 in Cr. No.330/2014 on the file of the respondent - Hosadurga Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He is in judicial custody since 22.08.2014 and hence he has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution is that one T.Manjappa, had lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner - accused is his relative and used to visit his house frequently. The petitioner - accused developed illicit relationship with Ambika, wife of the Complainant. This fact came to the notice of the Complainant and there are several quarrels between them. For some time she 3 avoided the petitioner - accused. On 22.08.2014 at about 1.25pm the petitioner - accused came to his house and throttled the neck of Ambika with a knife and committed her murder. This petitioner - accused informed about the death of Ambika to the Complainant over phone. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a complaint with the respondent - Police. Police have taken up investigation and after completion filed charge sheet.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner - accused has been falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed any offence or the one alleged against him. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed on 06.11.2014. The statement of witnesses have already been recorded and other materials are recovered, which are part of charge sheet. Hence, petitioner - accused is not required for any further investigation. He further contended that the petitioner - accused is suffering from Direct Inguinal Hernia and was 4 initially admitted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru and underwent surgery for right side. Thereafter he again admitted to Jail Ward at Chithradurga District Hospital on 30.05.2015 and on 03.06.2015 he again underwent surgery for left side. He requires better medical attention and treatment. He is in judicial custody since from 22.08.2014. The petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court while granting the bail. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader vehemently opposes the bail application on the ground that there is a prima facie case against this petitioner - accused No.1. The offences alleged are punishable with death or imprisonment for life and therefore, requests this court to dismiss the bail application.

6. Perused the records.

7. As could be seen from the records, the petitioner - accused is in custody for more than 11 months. The investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. The petitioner contended that he had already underwent two surgeries of left and right Direct Inguinal Hernia at Bengaluru and Chithradurga. He submits petitioner - accused needs further better medical attention and treatment. He is not required for any further interrogation. Petitioner undertakes to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this court. Thus, the apprehension of the learned Government Pleader could be suitably met by imposing proper conditions. Hence the following:-

ORDER

1) Bail petition is allowed and petitioner is granted bail. Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.75,000/- with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional court;

2) He shall not hold out threats to the prosecution witnesses or tamper with evidence;

3) Petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing, except under unavoidable circumstances;

4) If he violates any of the above conditions, prosecution will be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail;

5) He shall mark his attendance before the jurisdictional police once in a month on every second Sunday between 9 AM to 5 PM till completion of the case;

6) It is made clear that if he does not comply with any one of the conditions imposed on him, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail from the concerned Sessions Court Sd/-

JUDGE VK

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court