Harsha vs State By Alanahally Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 1990 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4882/2021

BETWEEN:

HARSHA
S/O SUNDARAJ N,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT 136/1, SAI NILAYA
VINAYAKA LAYOUT, DEVASANDRA,
BENGALURU-560036.                         ... PETITIONER

         (BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
                 SRI HARISHA T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY
ALANAHALLY POLICE
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560009.                      ... RESPONDENT

               (BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.114/2020    (C.C.NO.1246/2021)   REGISTERED    BY
ALANAHALLY POLICE STATION, MYSURU, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A AND 302 OF IPC AND
                                 2



SECTION 75 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF
CHILDREN) ACT.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking

regular bail of the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crime No.114/2020

of Alanahally Police Station, Devaraja Sub-Division, Mysuru City,

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read

with Section 34 of IPC and Section 75 of Juvenile Justice (Care

and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the

respondent-State.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is

that, when the deceased was about to leave the house for work,

at that time, the petitioner herein has assaulted the victim. As a

result, she lost conscious and then by taking the saree which

was worn by her, pressed the neck. As a result, she lost her life

and this incident is witnessed by C.W.2, who is 11 years old

daughter of the petitioner and the deceased. Based on the

complaint, the police have registered the case, investigated the

matter and filed the charge-sheet.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that the police have already investigated the matter and

filed the charge-sheet. The counsel would also submit that the

deceased was having illicit relationship. Hence, there was

frequent galatta between the petitioner and the deceased. The

counsel would further submit that there is a discrepancy in the

statement given by the minor girl, who is aged about 11 years

and so also the father of the deceased, who had lodged the

complaint. When such being the material contradictions in the

statement of the alleged eye witness as well as the father of the

deceased, this Court has to exercise the discretion in favour of

the petitioner.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the respondent-State would submit that cause of death of the

deceased is due to pressure on the neck and the petitioner

committed murder by pressing her neck using a saree and the

same is witnessed by C.W.2, who is aged about 11 years. When

C.W.2 tried to rescue her mother, at that time, this petitioner

also assaulted the daughter. When the material evidence is

available before the Court and 164 statement of C.W.2 as well as

the father of the deceased has been recorded before the learned

Magistrate, there are ample material against the petitioner in

committing the murder.

6. Having heard the respective counsel and also on

perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the

marriage between the deceased and the petitioner has taken

place 12 years ago and in the said wedlock, they also have a

daughter aged about 11 years. The daughter of the deceased

and the petitioner, who has been examined as C.W.2 has

witnessed the incident and before the learned Magistrate under

Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., she has narrated how the incident has

taken place and the same discloses that this petitioner sat on the

deceased and pressed on her neck using a saree. The medical

evidence also discloses that cause of death is on account of

pressure on the neck and as a result, she has lost her life.

7. Having taken note of the statement of C.W.2,

recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C., who has witnessed the

incident which has taken place in the house and that too, in the

morning and the case of the prosecution is that when the

deceased was about to leave the house for work, at that time,

the incident has taken place and the specific reason for

committing murder of the deceased is that this petitioner

suspected the fidelity of the deceased. When the materials are

against the petitioner, the fact that the investigation is

completed and charge-sheet is filed is not a ground to enlarge

the petitioner on bail. Taking away the life of his wife and

seeking bail on the ground that he is having 11 years old child as

well as aged parents is not a ground to exercise the discretion in

favour of the petitioner.

8. The Apex Court, in the judgment in the case of

RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD VS. VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI

MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER reported in (2021) 6

SUPREME COURT CASES 230 has categorically held that, while

exercising the judicial discretion, the recording of reasons in a

judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the

order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards

of reason and justice. In view of the principles laid down in the

judgment referred (supra), it is not a fit case to exercise the

discretion in favour of the petitioner under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C., when prima facie material is available against the

petitioner.

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ST