Karnataka High Court
Kumar G H vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal
Crl.P.No.7315/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7315/2021
BETWEEN:
KUMAR.G.H
S/O HANUMASHETTY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT NO.8, NEAR CHICKEN SHOP
1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS
MALAGALA, NAGARABHAVI
2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 072
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
DODDAGANGAVADI VILLAGE
ONAKERE HOBLI,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH.N.R, ADV. FOR
SRI.SHIVAKUMAR.G.B, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANNAPOORNESHWARINAGAR
POLICE STATION
REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN S.C.NO.1232/2018 IN CR.NO.279/2017 OF
Crl.P.No.7315/2021
2
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302 AND 201 OF IPC ON THE
FILE OF CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
(CCH-46) AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This is the third successive petition seeking bail in
S.C.No1232/2018 on the file of the XLV Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
2. The petitioner is facing trial in the said case
for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 201 of IPC on the basis of the charge sheet filed
by Annapoorneshwarinagar police station.
3. It is alleged that the petitioner suspecting
the fidelity of his wife Parvathi on 19.06.2017 at 10.30
p.m. picked up quarrel with her in his house, thrashed
her head against the wall and committed her murder. It
is further alleged that to project the death as natural
one, he placed the dead body on the cot in the sleeping
position and escaped.
Crl.P.No.7315/2021
4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued
much about the merits of the case. Since earlier
petitions are dismissed considering the merits, it is not
open to him again to argue on the merits of the case.
He can seek bail only on the changed circumstances.
5. The only changed circumstance urged by
the petitioner's counsel is that there is delay in trial.
Even that ground was urged in his second petition in
Crl.P.No.5318/2020. Relying on the judgment in Anil
Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another1 this
Court rejected that petition on the ground that in cases
involving heinous offence like murder, delay in trial is
not relevant consideration to grant bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the case in Anil Yadav's case was the case of
brutal murder, therefore, the said judgment is not
applicable to the present case. The appellant is facing
the allegation of committing murder of his wife in his
own house which is otherwise a shelter or protection
(2018)12 SCC 129
Crl.P.No.7315/2021
home for her. By any stretch of imagination, such act
cannot be called as less heinous offence. There is no
merit in the petition. Therefore petition is rejected.
The trial Court is requested to expedite the trial
and dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible.
Sd/-
JUDGE
akc
