Karnataka High Court
Sri. Chandramouly S vs State Of Karnataka By Varthur ... on 7 August, 2023
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6793 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI CHANDRAMOULY S
S/O LATE A. SRINIVAS RAO
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
NO.1431, NEAR KESHAWASWAMI
TEMPLE, FORT STREET, VIJAYAPUR
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT - 562 135.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.V. SHANKAR NARAYAN RAO, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI ARUN J BIRJE.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
NANDINI
MS
Location:
High Court 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
of Karnataka
BY VARTHUR POLICE
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. GURUPRASAD R
S/O RAGHAVENDRA RAO
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT NO 134, NEAR SRS
VIDYALAYA, TUBARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 066.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 439(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO CANCELLING
THE BAIL GRANTED TO ACCUSED NO.1 / RESPONDENT NO.2 BY
COURT OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
RURAL VIDE ORDER DATED 03.06.2023 (ANNEXURE-G). PASS AN
ORDER FOR IMMEDIATELY TAKING THE ACCUSED NO.1 /
RESPONDENT NO.2. INTO CUSTODY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The defacto complainant is before this Court under
Section 439(2) of Cr.PC, seeking cancellation of regular bail
granted to respondent no.2 by the Court of the VIII Addl.
District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru,
in Crl.Misc.Petition No.946/2023 dated 03.06.2023.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also
perused the material available on record.
3. On the basis of the statement given by Smt. Madhuri -
wife of respondent no.2 and daughter of the petitioner herein
dated 26.01.2023, Varthur Police Station, Bengaluru City, had
registered FIR in Crime No.17/2023 for the offences punishable
under Sections 34, 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961. The said statement was recorded at Manipal Hospital
on 26.01.2023 at about 2.05 a.m. In her statement, Smt.
Madhuri had stated that she was married to respondent no.2
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
herein in the year 2016 and from the said wedlock, they have a
son. It is alleged that respondent no.2 and his family members
were harassing Smt. Madhuri, and respondent no.2 allegedly
also had an illicit relationship with another lady and he used to
abuse and assault his wife Madhuri regularly and asked her to
bring money from her house. On 25.01.2023 at about 10.00
a.m., respondent no.2 allegedly abused his wife Madhuri and
stated that if she leaves him, he intends to lead life with
somebody else. Her in-laws also allegedly abused Madhuri.
Therefore, she had consumed some chemical which was
brought from her son's school for the purpose of experiment.
Based on the statement of Madhuri, FIR in Crime No.17/2023
was registered for the offences under Sections 498A, 34 IPC
and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It appears
that subsequently, Madhuri died on 31.01.2023 in the hospital.
Thereafter, the defecto complainant had lodged the complaint
before the Varthur police stating that on 25.01.2023 her
daughter Madhuri was subjected to torture by her husband and
in-laws and this was informed to her by her daughter.
Immediately, she went to the house of her daughter. Even
before she could reach the house, the accused persons
including respondent no.2 herein had caught hold of her
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
daughter and made her forcibly consume poison. She has
stated that this was informed to her by her daughter Madhuri
who had handed over her son to her custody, and thereafter,
she had taken her daughter to Manipal Hospital and got her
admitted. Based on the subsequent complaint, offence under
Section 304B IPC was invoked against the accused persons.
4. Respondent no.2 (accused no.1) and his brother -
accused no.4 were arrested during the course of investigation.
Investigation in the case was completed and charge sheet was
filed on 28.04.2023. Anticipatory bail application filed by
accused nos.2 & 3 who are the parents of respondent no.2, in
Crl.P.No.2683/2023 was allowed by this Court on 20.04.2023.
The bail application of respondent no.2 under Section 439
Cr.PC filed subsequent to the filing of charge sheet was allowed
by VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.Petition No.946/2023 on
03.06.2023. Being aggrieved by the same, the defacto
complainant is before this Court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the learned Sessions Judge had erred in granting
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
the relief of regular bail to respondent no.2 on the ground of
parity. He submits that respondent no.2 and the other accused
do not stand on the same footing, and therefore, the reasoning
assigned by the learned Sessions Judge for granting the relief
of regular bail to respondent no.2 on the ground of parity
cannot be sustained. In support of his argument, he has placed
reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the
case of JAIPAL SINGH MITTAL VS STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER -
2006 SCC OnLine All 2239.
6. From the material available on record, it is seen that
initially FIR was registered in Crime No.17/2023 by the Varthur
police, Bengaluru, on the basis of the statement given by
deceased Madhuri while she was admitted in the hospital. The
said statement was recorded on 26.01.2023 by the police at
Manipal Hospital where deceased Madhuri was admitted. In her
statement, Madhuri had stated that on 25.01.2023, since her
husband and in-laws had abused her, she had consumed some
chemical which was brought from her son's school for the
purpose of experiment. Based on this statement, initially FIR
was registered against respondent no.2 and his parents only for
the offences under Sections 34 & 498A IPC and Section 4 of
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, during the course of
treatment in the hospital, it appears that Madhuri who had
given her statement on 26.01.2023 which had resulted in
registering FIR in Crime No.17/2023, had died. Thereafter, the
defacto complainant who is her mother has lodged a complaint
stating that Madhuri had informed her that the accused persons
including her husband/respondent no.2 herein had forcibly
made her consume poison on 25.01.2023.
7. The averments made in the complaint lodged by the
defecto complainant subsequent to the death of Madhuri is
contrary to the statement given by Madhuri while she was
admitted in the hospital. In the subsequent statement given by
the defacto complainant, she also has implicated the brother of
respondent no.2 who was subsequently arrayed as accused
no.4 in the case. Accused no.1/respondent no.2 and his brother
accused no.4 were arrested during the course of investigation.
Accused nos.2 & 3 who are the parents of respondent no.2 had
filed application under Section 438 Cr.PC before this Court and
the same was allowed by this Court on 20.04.2023. The
investigation in the case was completed and charge sheet was
filed thereafter on 28.04.2023. The regular bail application of
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
accused no.4 in Crl.Misc.Petition No.780/2023 was allowed by
the VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District, vide order dated 03.05.2023. The application under
Section 439 Cr.PC filed by respondent no.2 in Crl.Misc.Petition
No.946/2023 was thereafter allowed by the VIII Addl. District &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, vide order dated
03.06.2023.
8. In paragraph 11 of the order dated 03.06.2023, the
learned Sessions Judge has observed that accused no.1 has
filed the petition after completion of investigation and the
Investigating Officer has already submitted the charge sheet to
the court. Accused no.1 is in JC since from the date of arrest
and in view of completion of investigation, he is not required for
custodial interrogation. Thereafter, in paragraph 12 of the said
order, the learned Sessions Judge has observed that accused
no.1 is entitled for bail on the ground of parity. Merely for the
said reason it cannot be said that the learned Sessions Judge
has granted regular bail to accused no.1/respondent no.2
herein, only on the ground of parity, and therefore, the said
order is not sustainable.
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
9. In the case on hand, investigation is completed and
charge sheet has been filed. This aspect of the matter was also
taken into consideration by the learned Sessions Judge while
granting relief to the petitioner. The contention of the learned
Senior Counsel who had appeared for respondent no.2 before
the learned Sessions Judge was also noted by the learned
Sessions Judge in paragraph 10 of the order and a reading of
the same would make it very clear that the learned Senior
Counsel had pointed out the contradictions in the statement
made by deceased Madhuri on 26.01.2023 and in the
subsequent complaint lodged by the defecto complainant on
30.01.2023. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that
bail was granted to respondent no.2 by the learned Sessions
Judge only on the ground of parity.
10. After appreciating the charge sheet material available on
record and also having regard to the contradictions in the
statement of deceased Madhuri and the subsequent complaint
lodged by the defacto complainant, it cannot be said that the
learned Sessions Judge was not justified in granting regular bail
to accused no.2 more so when the investigation in the case is
completed and charge sheet has been filed.
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
11. It is trite that judgments can be relied as precedents only
if the said judgments can be made applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the case. In Jaipal Singh Mittal's case supra,
the facts and circumstances of the case was totally different. In
the said case, regular bail was granted to the husband only on
the ground of parity, and therefore, the bail granted to him was
cancelled by the High Court of Allahabad. However, the fact
situation in the present case is not similar to that of Jaipal
Singh Mittal's case. Under the circumstances, the said
judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case.
12. I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order
passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting regular bail to
respondent no.2 in Crime No.17/2023 registered by Varthur
police. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as repeatedly held that only
in exceptional and supervening circumstances bail granted to
an accused can be cancelled. No such exceptional or
supervening circumstance is pointed out in the present case.
On the other hand, from the appreciation of the overall material
available on record, I am of the opinion that the learned
Sessions Judge was fully justified in enlarging respondent no.2
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:27650
CRL.P No. 6793 of 2023
on regular bail. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this
petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
