Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 880 (KAR)

Umla v. State of Karnataka

2012-10-09

C.R.Kumaraswamy

body2012
ORDER C.R. Kumaraswamy, J: This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the Advocate for the petitioner praying to release the accused/petitioner on bail in Crime No.23/2012 of Ratkal Police Station, Chincholi - Tq., Gulbarga-District in S.C. No.347/2012, which is registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for petitioner as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader. 3. I have perused the statement of objections filed by the learned High Court Government Pleader and the FIR found in the records. 4. The contents of FIR discloses that Ratkal Police have registered a case in Crime No.23/2012 against accused No.1- Umla Pomu Rathod for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act on the complaint of Dasharath. It is alleged in the FIR that there was illicit relationship between the complainant's mother and the accused and she was coming in the way of the family affairs of the accused and also there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused in connection with the money transaction. Therefore, he shot at the head of the mother of the complainant by means of a gun. Consequently, she died. Accused was implicated in this crime based on his admission of guilt before the complainant and others. 5. In this case, investigation is completed and charge-sheet is laid against accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Indian Arms Act. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that accused No.1 was having illicit relationship with Seetabai. Recently Government granted a house to Seetabai along with some fund and accused wanted some part of the fund. On 22.04.2012 accused demanded Seetabai to bring the money, for that Seetabai declined to bring the money. Then accused No.1 took Seetabal to the farmhouse situated in the agricultural land and shot her by means of a gun. CW 11 is an eye-witness to the incident. Accused No.2 has secured the licence for the gun. Though accused No.1 was not having any licence, he has shot Seetabai by means of a gun. 6. Then accused No.1 took Seetabal to the farmhouse situated in the agricultural land and shot her by means of a gun. CW 11 is an eye-witness to the incident. Accused No.2 has secured the licence for the gun. Though accused No.1 was not having any licence, he has shot Seetabai by means of a gun. 6. Though there is an eye-witness to the incident i.e., CW11, his statement was recorded after eight days, therefore, not much credence can be given to the statement of eye-witness at this stage. Accused has been implicated in this crime based on his admission of guilt before the complainant and others. In other words, this case is based on a formal statement admitting to a crime before the complainant, in my view, it is not safe to rely on the formal statement admitting to a crime. 7. Petitioner is in judicial custody for more than seven months. It is well settled law that pre-trial detention is bad in law. The offence alleged against accused is under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. This offence is of serious nature therefore, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to prepare for his defence. In this case, investigation is competed and charge-sheet has been laid. Therefore, presence of the petitioner for the purpose of investigation is not required. Besides, accused is aged about more than 65 years. Under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. sick, infirm and aged persons are entitled for bail, Taking into consideration that the case is based on admission of crime by the accused, besides considering the age of the accused, in my view, this is a fit case to grant bail at this stage. 8. In the result, I pass the following. ORDER This bail petition is allowed conditionally. The petitioner is granted with bail. He shall be released on bail in Crime No. 23/2012 of Ratkal Police Station on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge in S. C. No. 347/2012 on the following conditions. 1. The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 2. He shall not jump the bail. 3. If any condition is violated, the bail entails cancellation.