Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1082 (KAR)

Perumal v. State of Karnataka

2019-06-04

S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has sought to be enlarged on bail in connection with his detention in Crime No.309/2018 with respect to the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC. 2. The case that is made out by the prosecution is that the deceased-Sangeetha had married the petitioner about 15 years back and they have two children, son-Madan Kumar, aged about 13 years and daughter-Mani, aged about 10 years, respectively. It is stated that the accused had developed a habit of consuming alcohol and during intoxicated state, he used to abuse and beat his wife and was insisting her to bring money from her father. It is further stated that on 09.05.2018 at about 7:30 a.m., the petitioner had informed the complainant, who is his father-in-law about the death of his daughter. Subsequently, on the basis of the complaint, a UDR case was registered and investigation was commenced. The investigation is now complete. The petitioner was arrested and has continued to remain in custody since 27.05.2018. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the Inquest Report under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. at Column No.17, there is a clear observation that the cause of death is not clearly ascertainable and further medical investigation was sought for. It is submitted that only on the basis of Histopathology Report, the Doctor had opined that the cause of death was due to multiple injuries sustained, which the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states is a matter to be proved. 4. Note is taken of the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence as the circumstances of death is a matter that does not come out clearly and requires to be proved as there are no eye witness who have witnessed the event of death of the deceased. It is to be noted that the learned LIX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru at the stage when investigation was still to be completed has rejected the application of the petitioner seeking to be enlarged on bail. 5. Taking note of the fact that the charge sheet having been filed and that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and that CWs.2 and 8 were examined and have turned hostile and also that proceedings for bail cannot be treated to be proceedings to punish the petitioner, the petitioner is enlarged on bail. 5. Taking note of the fact that the charge sheet having been filed and that the case rests on circumstantial evidence and that CWs.2 and 8 were examined and have turned hostile and also that proceedings for bail cannot be treated to be proceedings to punish the petitioner, the petitioner is enlarged on bail. The petitioner has two children aged about 13 years and 10 years and they are in the custody of the petitioners friend, is also a matter to be taken note of. 6. Accordingly, bail petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one Lakh only) with a surety for the like sum before the trial Court. (ii) The petitioner shall fully co-operate with the expeditious disposal of the case and he shall not indulge in any criminal activities henceforth. (iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence, influence in any way any witness or hamper directly or indirectly the investigation.