Full Judgment
-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200114 OF 2024 (439(Cr.PC)/483(BNSS) BETWEEN:
1. NARASAPPA S/O. SAYAPPA MYATHARI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: COOLI.
2. SUNDRAMMA W/O. SAYAPPA MYATHARI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLI, BOTH RESIDENT OF NADEPALLI VILLAGE, TQ: SEDAM, DISTRICT: KALABURAGI-585222. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANKET APPAJI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE, THROUGH MUDHOL PS, BY THE ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT: KALABURAGI-585102.
2. KISTAPPA S/O. MOGALAPPA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, JAGADISH T R R/AT: PATAMIDIPALI, KODANGAL MANDAL, Location: High Court of Karnataka, VIKARABAD DISTRICT, TELANGANA-509338. Dharwad Bench Dharwad.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRL. PETITION IS FILED U/S. 439 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND ENLARGE THE PETITIONERS ON BAIL IN CC NO.1221/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI SITTING AT SEDAM CR. NO.46 OF 2022 OF THE MUDHOL P.S, REGISTERED AND CHARGE SHEETED FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S.302, 498A, 201 AND R/W. 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -2- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.11/2023 pending before
the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi sitting at Sedam, arising out of Crime No.46/2022 (CC No.1221/2022) registered by Mudhol Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’), are before this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 seeking grant of bail.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: FIR in Crime No.46/2022 was registered by Mudhol Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A and 201 read with 34 of IPC against the petitioners on the basis of the complaint lodged by CW1-Kishtappa, who is father of the deceased Manemma. In the complaint, it is averred that Smt. Manemma was married to petitioner No.1 (accused No.1), Narasappa about 13 years prior to the date of complaint. From the wedlock, accused No.1 and deceased Manemma have given birth to male child. The mother of accused No.1 died, when he
-3- was aged about 5-6 years, thus, 15 years ago, father of accused No.1 married accused No.2-Smt. Sundramma. Since father of accused No.1 was suffering from age old ailments, accused No.1 had illicit relationship with his step-mother
accused No.2-Sundramma. This fact came to the knowledge of wife of accused No.1, i.e., deceased Manemma, thus, she enquired with accused No.1 about his illicit relationship with accused No.2, for which, he assaulted his wife. Therefore, she went to her parents’ house and after couple of years, again accused No.1 brought her back to the matrimonial home.
Again accused No.1 ill-treated the deceased Manemma. Therefore, the complainant and his family members had summoned the petitioners and advised them. Even thereafter,
petitioner No.1 had continued to ill-treat his wife. On 25.04.2022, at about 2.00 a.m. in the midnight hours, accused No.1 attempted to strangulate the deceased Manemma with the help of rope, but, suddenly, the deceased woke up and resisted the acts of accused No.1 and 2. Accused No.2 caught hold of legs of deceased Manemma and accused No.1 with the help of rope, strangulated her to house roof. Hence, the first informant received information about death of his daughter, immediately,
-4- the complainant and his family members visited the scene of offence and they suspected the foul play in the death of deceased Manemma. Accordingly, the complainant approached the police and lodged the complaint, based on which, FIR was registered in Crime No.46/2022 against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences.
3. During the course of investigation, the petitioners
were arrested and in turn, they were remanded to the judicial custody. The investigating officer visited the scene of offence and recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners. Soon after institution of charge sheet, bail application was filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.Misc.No.1779/2022 and same was rejected on 13.09.2022. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that the petitioners -5- have no criminal antecedents and are in the custody of more than 2 ½ years. Accused No.1 has minor child to be taken care
of. There is no eye-witness to the incident and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. The petitioners undertake to abide by any of the conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State has opposed the bail application. She submits that son of accused No.1 is the material witness to the incident. There are sufficient incriminating materials against
the petitioners to connect them to the crime. Now the Trial Court has framed charges and the matter is set-down for trial and the Trial Court recorded prosecution witnesses as PW1 to PW7 and all the prosecution witnesses, such as PW1 to PW7 have supported the case of the prosecution. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may abscond or not available for further trial and it would hamper the trial. Accordingly, she prays to reject the petition.
7. Considering the submissions and material on record, the following point that would arise for my consideration is: -6- “Whether the petitioners have made out sufficient grounds to be enlarged on bail in the facts and circumstances of the case?”
8. Accused No.1 is the husband of deceased Manemma, accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased
and couples have minor child from their wedlock. As per the charge sheet allegations, accused Nos.1 and 2 have illicit relationship with each other, when this fact came to the knowledge of the deceased Manemma and when she objected the act of accused No.1, he harassed her and evicted her from matrimonial home. Therefore, she went to her parental house; again she was brought back to the matrimonial house, on the advice of elders and even thereafter, accused No.1 continued
his illicit relationship with accused No.2. Hence, again the deceased Manemma raised her objection and accordingly, to eliminate her, both accused Nos.1 and 2 assaulted her and accused No.2 caught hold of her legs tightly and accused No.1 strangulated the deceased with the help of rope to the roof of the house.
9. As per opinion of the doctor, who conducted post- mortem examination based on FSL report, has opined that the -7-
cause of death was ‘due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation’. Therefore, the allegation against accused No.1 that he had strangulated the neck of his wife and committed her murder, is required to be proved in a full-fledged trial. At this juncture, the prosecution witnesses i.e., material witnesses have deposed against accused Nos.1 and 2.
10. So far as role of accused No.2 is concerned, at the
time of the incident, she caught hold legs of the deceased Manemma and hence, accused No.1 strangulated the deceased with the help of rope, thereby she assisted in the commission of murder. Looking into any angle, there is prima facie material against the accused No.1.
11. The role of accused No.2 is not standing on the
same foot as that of accused No.1. Moreover, accused No.2 is aged about 58 years as on the date of incident and she is a lady. In the petition, it is contended that son of accused No.1 is alone in the house and father of child is in the judicial custody. Therefore, in order to take care the welfare of the child, bail requires to be granted in favour of accused No.2, who is none other than grand-mother of child and it is bounden duty of grand-mother to take care of the grand children.
-8-
12. It is well established principles of law that while
granting bail, the Court has to consider the nature of the offences, circumstances in which the offence is committed, position and status of the petitioner with reference to the victim and witnesses, likelihood of fleeing away from justice, of repeating same offences by the petitioner of tampering with the witnesses, character and antecedents of the petitioner. Law is well settled that while disposing of the bail petition, the Court need not scan the prosecution papers and hold a mini trial. Under such circumstances, if bail is not granted in favour of accused No.2, who is none other than grand-mother of the child, minor child becomes orphan in the eye of society.
13. Considering the nature of the offences, circumstances of the case, particularly, the allegations leveled against the petitioners, the Court is of the opinion that the bail application is rejected against petitioner No.1, however, petitioner No.2 is entitled to grant of bail in her favour.
14. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
a) The petition is allowed in part. b) The bail petition as against petitioner No.1- Narasappa S/o Sayappa Myahari is rejected. -9- c) The petitioner No.2-Smt. Sundramma W/o Sayappa Myathari is directed to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.46/2022 (CC No.1221/2022) registered by Mudhol Police Station, on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi sitting at Sedam, subject to the satisfaction of Trial Court, on the following conditions:
(i) Petitioner No.2 (Accused No.2) shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(ii) Petitioner No.2 shall attend the Trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing, unless appearance is exempted by the Trial Court for valid reasons.
(iii) Petition No.2 shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses.
(iv) Petitioner No.2 shall not involve in similar
offences in future. d) Violation of any of the conditions shall entail for cancellation of bail. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE SMM/ JTR ct-an List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1