Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 869 (KAR)

Suresh v. State Of Karnataka

2020-05-13

K.S.MUDAGAL

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Hunsur police have charge sheeted the petitioner in Crime No.99/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of the complaint of CW.1. 2. The marriage of the petitioner with victim Manjula was solemnized about 18 years prior to the incident. Out of the said marriage, CWs.2, 3 and another child were born. On 20.04.2019 at 2.00 a.m. victim Manjula was found in the house of the petitioner with homicidal injuries on her neck and she succumbed to the injuries on the same day when she was being taken to the hospital. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner was addicted to alcohol and suspecting fidelity of Manjula. It is further alleged that on 20.04.2019 he picked up quarrel with Manjula for not giving him money for his addiction and objecting her going to Kerala for Coolie work and stabbed her with a knife and committed her murder. 4. Sri B.Lethif, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses. He submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody since one year and he may be granted bail imposing any conditions. 5. Per contra, learned HCGP opposes the petition on the ground that the case is based on the statement of eyewitnesses more so the children of the petitioner himself. He submits that having regard to the gravity of offence, it is not a fit case to grant bail. 6. As already pointed out, death has occurred in the house of the petitioner when himself, his children and victim alone were present. That was a homicidal death. Therefore, it was for the petitioner to explain as to how that has occurred. He did not report the death to police. Further, the statements of CWs.2 and 3 the children of the petitioner himself who were present at the scene of offence, CW.1 who rushes to the spot at the call of CW.2 and CWs.5 and 6 who are other neighbours, are incriminating against the petitioner. 7. Having regard to the fact that the prime witnesses are the petitioners own children, there is a chance of tampering. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant bail. The petition is dismissed.