Karnataka High Court
Smt Redamma @ Rekha vs State Of Karnataka By Chikballapur Town on 25 August, 2014
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4517/2014
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Reddamma @ Rekha,
W/o. late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 32 years,
Koracharpete,
R/o. Dhanamcheruvu,
Kadiri Taluk,
Ananthpur District,
Andhra Pradesh-515 001.
2. Sri. Balu,
S/o. Naganna,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o. Dhanamcheruvu,
Kadiri Taluk,
Ananthpur District,
Andhra Pradesh-515 001. .. PETITIONERS
(By Sri. R. Kalyan, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka,
By Chikballapur Town
Police, Chikballapur-562 101. .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, HCGP)
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of
the Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in
Cr. No.124/2014 of Chickaballapura Town P.S.,
Chickaballapur, for the offence P/U/S 302 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for orders this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking their release on bail of the alleged offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.124/2014.
2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State.
3. I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint, order of the lower Court and other charge sheet material placed on record. 3
4. One C.A.Lavanya, daughter of the deceased has lodged the complaint in this case alleging that complainant's father died about 8 years back. Her brother is married to one Smt.Redamma about 9 years back and in the wedlock the couples are having two children namely Jaswanth and Anushka. Complainant married about 17 years back and her brother Krishnamurthy who was an alcoholic, died about 8 months back. Since from the date of the death of her brother, her mother was living in the same house along with her sister-in-law. There used to be frequent quarrels between accused No.1 and her mother in respect of collecting rental amount. Her brother is having four houses and three houses are let out on monthly rent. About one month back, her sister-in-law went to her parental place along with her children. That on 14.5.2014 her mother was at shop till 7.00 p.m. and thereafter she went home. On 15.5.2014 her mother did not come to their shop till 10.00 a.m. Therefore, she sent her son to her mother's house and on enquiry, it 4 was found that her mother died. The same was communicated to her by her son. Immediately, complainant went to the spot and found the dead body which was in the hall and there were some injuries on the face of her mother. On enquiry, she came to know that on the previous day night her sister-in-law Redamma had come to take her belongings and on being suspicious about her sister-in-law and her brother Balu, complaint has been lodged.
5. The averments in the complaint shows that complainant is not the eyewitness. On the basis of the information furnished, she has lodged the complaint on suspicion. The statement of the witnesses particularly C.Ws.3, 4 and 6 recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation shows that they are also not the eyewitnesses to the incident and they have stated that they came to know about the same. Therefore, case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet has 5 been filed. Both the petitioners have contended that they are innocent and not involved in the commission of the alleged offences. It is no doubt true that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer has recovered some of the gold ornaments from petitioner No.2 Balu. But in the absence of other material and only on the basis of the said recovery, it cannot be assumed that prima facie material is placed against accused No.2 Balu. Petitioners have undertaken that they are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by the Court. Looking to the materials on record, I am of the opinion that by imposing reasonable conditions, petitioners can be admitted to bail.
6. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail of the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered in respondent-police station Crime No.124/2014, subject to following conditions:-
6
(i) Each petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and furnish one surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of concerned Court.
(ii) They shall not intimidate or tamper with
prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.
(iii) They shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp