Karnataka High Court
Vasudevan vs State Of Karnataka on 21 January, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9419/2021
BETWEEN:
VASUDEVAN
S/O SUBRAMANYA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO. 008
RANGA GOKULA APARTMENT
FCI GODOWN ROAD,
TIN FACTORY
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BENGALURU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVANNA K H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHO, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR PS
BENGALURU
REPTD BY GOVT PLEADER
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHANKAR H.S, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
U/S.439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN S.C.NO.504/2021 OF CR.NO.384/2020 OF
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 120B, 201, 498A, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF
2
IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE LXXI CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-72), BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner being the sole accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.384/2020 of Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Section 302, 120(B), 201, 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by informant - Vasudevan G S.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner himself lodged the first information with Rammurthy Nagar Police Station on 15.11.2020 stating that accused No.2 is his brother-in-law and he caused the death of the wife of the informant by slitting her throat in the house and thereafter, accused No.2 also stabbed himself, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and was shifted to the hospital. The informant stated that his wife, 3 who had sustained fatal injuries due to the stab by accused No.2 succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, he requested the Police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the Police registered the case and took up investigation. During investigation, accused No.2 died in the hospital on 19.11.2020. It is stated that now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed against the present petitioner.
3. Heard Sri. Shivanna K.H, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Shakar H.S, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. Perused the materials on record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He has to look after his daughter and parents. He was apprehended on 29.11.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. The investigation has 4 been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner himself lodged the first information with the Police, but he is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. The petitioner is not having any criminal antecedents. He is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The petitioner was having illicit relationship with another lady and the deceased being his wife was opposing the same. Therefore, he offered supari to cause her death by his brother-in-law, who was initially arrayed as accused 5 No.2 in this case. It is stated that accused No.2 entered the house of the deceased and caused her death by slitting her throat. Thereafter, he also inflicted injury to himself and died in the hospital after four days. The statement of CW.3, who is the daughter of the deceased and the present petitioner is recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate wherein, she has specifically stated regarding the motive for the petitioner to cause the death of the deceased and payment of supari to the deceased accused. CWs - 9 and 10 are also the neighbours, who have also stated regarding the commission of the offence by the accused. Since there are prima facie materials against the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
6
"Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
7. The materials that are placed before the Court disclose that the present petitioner has filed the first information against his brother-in-law, stating that he caused the death of his wife by slitting her throat. During investigation, the Investigating Officer found that the present petitioner himself instigated accused No.2, gave supari to cause the death of his wife as he was having illicit relationship with another lady. This version of the prosecution is supported by the statement of CW.3, who is none other than the daughter of the present petitioner and she is aged 14 years. Her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C is also said to have been recorded by the learned Magistrate. Moreover, the prosecution is relying on the statements of CWs - 9 and 10, who came to the spot 7 immediately after the incident and these materials are to be taken into consideration. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is falsely implicated in the matter cannot be accepted at this stage. Since it is alleged that he has committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 120(B) along with other offences, the same are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Looking to the seriousness of the offence where criminal conspiracy is alleged against the petitioner, he is not entitled for bail.
Hence, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE RB