Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 455 (KAR)

ASHWINI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-02-09

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2017
ORDER : This petition is filed by accused No.1 in Crime No. 463/2016 registered by the Ramamurthy Nagar police, under section 323, 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been laid before 10th Addl. CMM Court, Mayohall Bangalore City. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.07.16 at 11.30 p.m. the deceased Shruthi along with the complainant Veena were proceeding to their house in an auto rickshaw and at that time accused No.1 to 3 followed them in another auto rickshaw, and accused No.1 questioned the deceased as to why she was not residing with him and when the deceased retorted and showed her unwillingness to live with accused No.1, accused 1 to 3 assaulted her with hands on her head, chest and on her private parts. The complainant took her in an auto rickshaw to the Bowring Hospital, where the she was declared dead. 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel that at the earliest point of time, the complainant had alleged that in addition to 3 accused there was another person by name Sona and all the 4 persons assaulted the deceased on here head, chest and private parts. But subsequently the complainant herself had given a further statement implicating only 3 accused persons and based on the said further statement charge-sheet has been filed only against 3 accused. Further the learned counsel submits that the medical evidence produced by the prosecution is not inconfirmity with the statement made by the sole eye witness that the deceased was assaulted on her private parts as no other injuries have been noted on the private parts of the deceased. 4. The learned H.C.G.P however submits that the even though in the further statement the complainant has implicated only 3 accused, she has not given up the allegations against the present petitioner. He has been implicated in the earlier complaint as well as in the subsequent complaint. Therefore, said ground cannot be a justification for the petitioner to seek bail. 5. The learned H.C.G.P however submits that the even though in the further statement the complainant has implicated only 3 accused, she has not given up the allegations against the present petitioner. He has been implicated in the earlier complaint as well as in the subsequent complaint. Therefore, said ground cannot be a justification for the petitioner to seek bail. 5. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, having gone through the entire material produced by the prosecution and having regard to the circumstances in which the alleged incident has taken place wherein it is specifically alleged that the assault was made in the context of refusal of the deceased to live with the victim and having regard to the other infirmities pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that in the said fact situations of the present case, the petitioner deserves to be admitted to bail subject to conditions. Hence on the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The petitioner/accused No.1 is ordered to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with two solvent local sureties for Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court below. (iii) Further the petitioner shall regularly appear before the court and shall not threaten either the complainant or any other prosecution witness in any manner. (iv) In the event the trial Court comes to the conclusion at any point of time during trial that the petitioner/accused No.1 herein is involved in either issuing threats or exerting influence on any of the witness, the bail shall stand cancelled.