Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 886 (KAR)

Sushanth @ Shan v. State Of Karnataka

2020-05-19

H.P.SANDESH

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in Crime No.71/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 324, 326, 307 and 309 of I.P.C. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant lodged a complaint alleging against this petitioner that his daughter Deeksha is studying in first year M.B.A. at Nitte Karkala. Earlier she was studying in Aloysius College, the accused was Dance Trainer to the victim girl and was harassing the victim frequently. The petitioner continued the harassment even though the victim girl had joined the College at Karkala and hence, the victim girl had filed a complaint with Karkala Police and in that case, the petitioner had got bail. Thereafter, the accused being enraged by the action of the victim girl and since it was one sided love, waited for a chance to kill her. In the meantime, the petitioner uploaded the photos of the victim girl in the social media and hence, she filed a complaint before the Women Police Station. When the matter stood thus, on 28.06.2019 at about 4.30 p.m., the complainant and her daughter alighted from the bus and the complainant told her daughter to go to his house and he in order to pick up his wife was waiting near the Ladies Hostel behind K.S. Hegde Hospital. At that time, he heard screaming noise which appears to be of his daughter and accordingly, he rushed to the spot and witnessed the petitioner stabbing his daughter. Then, with the help of public, shifted her to K.S. Hegde Hospital wherein, she was inpatient for a period of one month. The police, based on the complaint have registered the case against this petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused in his argument would contend that the photos which are produced along with this petition clearly discloses that both the petitioner and victim girl were loving each other and the petitioner had no intention either to hurt or kill her with severe injuries. However, during the scuffle, both of them have sustained injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused in his argument would contend that the photos which are produced along with this petition clearly discloses that both the petitioner and victim girl were loving each other and the petitioner had no intention either to hurt or kill her with severe injuries. However, during the scuffle, both of them have sustained injuries. He further submits that the victim girl has already been discharged from the hospital and she is regularly attending the class and this petitioner has been in custody from past one year and there is no need to continue him in the custody and investigation has been completed and it is a matter of trial. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would contend that the petitioner was harassing the victim girl and incident was witnessed by large number of eye witnesses. The medical evidence also discloses that the victim girl had sustained severe injuries on the vital part of the body which are fatal in nature and was in the hospital for a period of one month. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and there are no grounds to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State, this Court has to examine whether the petitioner has made out the grounds to enlarge the petitioner on bail by invoking Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 6. On perusal of the records, it is evident that the incident has taken place on 28.06.2019 and the victim was in the hospital for a period of one month. The wound certificate which is produced also discloses that the victim girl sustained both grievous and simple injuries. However, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that both loving each other and he has also produced photographs to that effect. 7. Having taken note of the stab injuries, that too on the vital part of the body and he went with the weapon, it is not a fit case the exercise the discretion. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would also contend that there was a preparation by the petitioner to stab the victim girl with an intention to take away her life. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State would also contend that there was a preparation by the petitioner to stab the victim girl with an intention to take away her life. Considering the gravity of the offence and nature of the injuries, whether both of them were loving each other or not is to be tested during trial. 8. Having considered the material on record, there is a prima face case against the petitioner. Mere filing of charge sheet is not a ground to enlarge him on bail. Looking into the nature of injuries, it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been in custody from past one year is not a ground to enlarge him on bail. Hence, I do not find any merit in this petition. 9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is dismissed.