Karnataka High Court
Sanneerakka vs State By Molakalamuru Police on 20 February, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7045 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SANNEERAKKA,
W/O.LATE CHITTAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
LABOURER,
R/O.SOMENAHALLI BYRAPURADAHATTI,
MOLAKALAMURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577535.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SAMEER S.N. ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY MOLAKALAMURU POLICE,
REP.BY THE SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.J.ESHWARAPPA, HCGP,)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE
PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.110/2016 PENDING ON
2
THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MOLAKALMURU P.S., CHITRADURGA DISTRICT FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 302 OF IPC AND SECTION 25 OF
COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS ACT
2005.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Cr.No.110/2016 registered by the Molakalmuru Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 25 of Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.
2. The investigation having been completed, charge sheet is laid and the matter is now pending before the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in S.C.No.79/2016, wherein the bail application moved by the petitioner before the Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga has been rejected.
3
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the material collected by the investigating agency does not make out the offences against the petitioner. Further the learned counsel submits that there is discrepancy in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the nature of poison is also not yet been identified and under such circumstances the case of the prosecution is susceptible to doubt.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the two material witnesses who are cited as eyewitnesses have clearly stated that the petitioner herein had given sugar to the deceased who is aged about 4 years, as a result, the deceased started vomiting and on the next day he died. The medical opinion also confirms that the deceased died due to poisoning. Therefore in view of the positive evidence collected by the prosecution and having regard to the gravity of the offences, the petitioner cannot be admitted to bail at this stage.
4
5. On going through the charge-sheet papers, it is seen that the incident is stated to have taken place on 30.04.2016. The victim is said to have died on 1.5.2016, The complaint was lodged only on 10.5.2016. In the complaint, it is stated that a written complaint was lodged to the police on 1.5.2016 and the same was registered in UDR 10/2016. The records reveal that the names of the two daughters of the complainant figured only in the complaint lodged on 10.5.2016 and these witnesses are cited as material witnesses to prove the charges against the petitioner. Further in the post-mortem report, the cause of death is shown as death due to zinc phosphide. This opinion appears to have been based on the forensic science laboratory report, which discloses that the stomach and its contents, portion of the liver and the blood of the deceased as well as his shirt and jeans pant were sent for chemical examination and the Scientific Officer has given his opinion which reads that phosphide ions were detected in all the 5 above articles. In the said report, it is opined that the source of phosphide ions would be zinc phosphide. In view of the said opinion and the circumstances discussed above, I am of the opinion that having regard to the nature of the evidence collected by the prosecution, the benefit of bail could be extended to the petitioner pending trial. Moreover, the petitioner/accused being a lady, related to the victim family and having her permanent place of abode within the limits of the Trial Court, it will not be difficult to secure her presence for the purpose of Trial. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances, I deem it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail, Hence the following:-
ORDER The Petition is allowed.
2. The petitioner/accused is ordered to be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- 6
(Rupees One Lakh only) with two local sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the further condition that petitioner/accused shall not threaten or allure the victim or the prosecution witnesses in whatsoever manner.
3. The petitioner shall regularly appear before the Court on every date of hearing.
4. In the event the petitioner is found to violate any of the above conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE MR/PN/mn/-