Maruthi. M vs State Of Karnataka By
2023 Latest Caselaw 1031 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE

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

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10869/2022

BETWEEN:

MARUTHI. M,
S/O SHAMBULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAYAKARAKERE,
ASAGODU VILLAGE,
JAGALURU TALUK,
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 513.                  ...PETITIONER

              (BY SRI MAHESH S.N., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SHO, HADADI POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE,
REPRESENTED BY GOVT.PLEADER,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE CITY.                               ...RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI H.S. SHANKAR, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN
CR.NO.173/2021 REGISTERED BY HADADI POLICE STATION,
DAVANAGERE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
498(A), 302, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAVANAGERE IN
S.C.NO.102/2022.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2



                           ORDER

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

regular bail of the petitioner in Crime No.173/2021 of Hadadi

Police Station, Davanagere, for the offence punishable under

Sections 498A, 302, 201 read with 34 of IPC.

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 the marriage of the victim and the petitioner was

solemnized on 09.09.2013 and in the said wedlock they have a

seven year old daughter. Within two years of the marriage, the

dispute arose between them and the petitioner subjected the

victim for assault suspecting her fidelity. The panchayath was

also held and thereafter the petitioner took back his wife. That

on 10.10.2021, the complainant spoke to the victim, but on

12.10.2021, the accused called the complainant over phone and

informed that he himself boarded his wife to the bus to their

house and enquired that she did not return. Immediately they

rushed to the house of the accused and on enquiry he did not

reveal about the whereabouts of the victim and subsequently the

dead body was found in the channel at Mittlakatte and the body

was identified by the daughter of the complainant. Hence, the

police have registered the case and investigated the matter and

now filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in

Crl.P.No.165/2022 before completion of investigation and the

same was dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2022, wherein

liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the Court after

filing of the charge-sheet and after receipt of the FSL report with

regard to the cause of death. The learned counsel would

contend that the cause of death is on account of drowning and

not on account of injuries as alleged in the charge-sheet. The

learned counsel submits that the case is based on the statement

of C.W.17, who is the last seen witness. C.W.17 says only about

the purchase of alcohol and taking of the deceased in the

motorcycle belonging to the petitioner and there are no other

sound circumstances against the petitioner. The learned counsel

submits that this petitioner is in custody from 25.11.2021. The

investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is filed and

FSL report does not disclose any material against the petitioner

and hence the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

5. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of

this Court in the case of MAHESHA @ NAYIMAHESHA v.

STATE BY BILIGERE POLICE STATION reported in (2017) 3

KCCR 2629, wherein this Court has observed that when a case

is entirely resting on the circumstantial evidence and the

prosecution completing the investigation, there is no impediment

to allow the petition. The learned counsel also relied upon the

judgment of this Court in the case of MALLAPPA AND OTHERS

v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2018) 2 KCCR SN

132, wherein it is held that when the investigation is completed

and final report is filed and there is no likelihood of the petitioner

hampering the investigation, bail may be granted.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that C.W.17,

who is the last seen witness found the victim along with the

petitioner on 11.10.2021 and the body was floating on

15.10.2021, after five days. The learned counsel submits that

the investigation material clearly reveals that this petitioner

during the subsistence of marriage with the victim, he contracted

second marriage with C.W.20. To that effect, the material is

also collected by the Investigating Officer. The learned counsel

submits that the victim had filed a claim petition for maintenance

and maintenance was also ordered on 20.06.2020 granting

maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month and motive for committing

the murder is on account of difference arose between them and

this Court granting maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month in

favour of the victim against the petitioner. The learned counsel

submits that within 1½ years of granting of maintenance, the

murder was committed. The learned counsel brought to the

notice of this Court that other injuries were found at the time of

conducting post mortem and hence it is the case of the

prosecution that the petitioner assaulted the victim and

thereafter thrown the body in the river. The learned counsel

submits that CDR details of the petitioner was collected and the

same was within the vicinity of the dead body of the victim. The

petitioner also did not lodge any complaint when the wife was

missing and all these factors were taken note of by this Court

earlier and rejected the bail petition on 25.01.2022.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State and also on perusal of the material

available on record, no doubt, this Court while rejecting the

petition during the crime stage gave liberty to the petitioner to

approach the Court after filing of the charge-sheet and after

receipt of the FSL report. Now, the FSL report is received and

final opinion of the FSL is that the deceased died due to asphyxia

consequent upon drowning. It is also not in dispute that the

body was found in the water. The learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that though an allegation is made that she

was assaulted and murdered and thereafter the body was

thrown in the river, the prosecution material does not

substantiate the same. Having considered the material available

on record, the Investigating Officer collected the material during

the investigation that though his marriage was solemnized with

the victim in 2013 and had a daughter, within a span of three

years, he contracted second marriage with C.W.20 on

23.08.2016. The other motive to commit the murder is that the

victim had filed a maintenance petition against the petitioner and

the Court also granted maintenance of Rs.4,000/- per month

vide order dated 20.06.2020. The murder is also committed

within 1½ years of passing of the order of maintenance. Apart

from that, the Investigating Officer also collected the CDR details

of the petitioner and the same substantiates that he was within

the vicinity of the dead body of the victim. When such material

is available before the Court and when the case is rest upon the

circumstantial evidence and police have collected the material of

passing of an order of maintenance against the petitioner as well

as CDR details, which also corresponds with the place of incident

and also C.W.17 who is the last seen witness has stated in his

statement that the victim and the petitioner both came and

purchased the alcohol and mere final opinion that cause of death

is on account of drowning, this Court cannot exercise the

discretion in favour of the petitioner even in a case of

circumstantial evidence. No doubt, the principles laid down in

the judgments referred supra by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the Court comes to the conclusion that when the

investigation has been completed and case is rest upon the

circumstantial evidence, the Court can exercise the discretion,

but at the same time, the Court has to look into the material on

record whether there are sound circumstances against the

petitioner. Having considered the sound circumstances and last

seen witness and also there was a second marriage during the

subsistence of the marriage of the victim with the petitioner and

he had contracted second marriage within a period of three

years and apart from that, there is an order of maintenance

against the petitioner and the murder was committed within a

span of 1½ years of the said order, it is clear that there was

motive to commit the murder and there is a sound circumstance

against the petitioner. Mere completion of investigation and

filing of the charge-sheet is not a ground to exercise the

discretion in favour of the petitioner.

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

following:

ORDER

The petition is rejected.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD