Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 236 (KAR)

Mahesha v. State of Karnataka

2023-02-08

M.G.UMA

body2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner-accused is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.261 of 2021 of T.Narasipura Police Station, Mysore District, pending on the file the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-Sri.Somappa. 2. Heard Sri. Raksha Keerthana.K, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Rahul Rai.K, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the sole accused. He is innocent and has not committed any offences as alleged. He has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. He was apprehended on 30/7/2021 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is alleged that there was quarrel between C.Ws.1 and 3 i.e., the petitioner and the son of his brother. The deceased being the mother of the petitioner intervened in the matter and tried to assault the petitioner with a wooden club. The petitioner snatched the wooden club and assaulted on the head of his mother, as a result of which, she died at the spot. Even the case made out by the prosecution is that it was not a pre-planned murder. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Even though the statements of C.Ws.1 to 3 disclose that the incident had taken place in a fit of anger, the injured has sustained one injury. The petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. Detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title to the petition and is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. C.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Statements of the eyewitnesses was also recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner assaulted the deceased on her head with a wooden club, as a result of which, she died at the spot. The wooden club was recovered at the spot. C.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Statements of the eyewitnesses was also recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner assaulted the deceased on her head with a wooden club, as a result of which, she died at the spot. The wooden club was recovered at the spot. As per the postmortem report, the deceased had sustained head injury. Looking to the nature and seriousness of the offence, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C.?" My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following: R E A S O N S 6. The son of the deceased lodged the first information against the petitioner making specific allegations. C.Ws.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. Statements of the eyewitnesses was also recorded under Sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. As per the case made out by the prosecution, there was quarrel between C.Ws.1 and 3 on the one hand and the petitioner on the other hand. The deceased tried to intervene in the matter and tried to assault the petitioner with the wooden club. It is stated that the petitioner snatched the wooden club from the deceased and hit on her head. As per the post-mortem report, she sustained one head injury i.e., fracture of the left temporal bone which resulted in her death. The wooden club and cloths of the accused were sent for FSL examination, which disclose that there were no blood stains. It is not the contention of the prosecution that it is pre-planned murder. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to conditions, which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. 7. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.261 of 2021 of T.Narasipura Police Station, Mysore District, on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions: a). The petitioner shall not commit similar offences. b). The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses. c). The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required. If in case, the petitioner violates any of the conditions as stated above, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the Trial Court seeking cancellation of bail. On furnishing the sureties by the petitioner, the Trial Court is at liberty to direct the Investigating Officer to verify the correctness of the address and authenticity of the documents furnished by the petitioner and the sureties and a report may be called for in that regard, which is to be submitted by the Investigating Officer within 5 days. The Trial Court on satisfaction, may proceed to accept the sureties for the purpose of releasing the petitioner on bail.