The Karnataka HC recently comprising of a bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar ruled that bail can’t be granted merely because the wife of the accused is pregnant and due for delivery. (Gurunagouda v. The State of Karnataka)
Facts of the case
In this case, the accused persons assaulted the complainant’s brother. The accused persons murdered his brother by assaulting him with rod, stick and stones.
The appellants/accused had filed bail applications and the same came to be rejected by the Sessions Judge. The said order was challenged before the High Court
Two appeals were filed by the appellants challenging the order passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, rejecting their bail applications sought in case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 , 148, 323, 324, 307, 302 , 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’) and under Sections 3(2)(v) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SC & ST (POA) Act’).
Contention of the Parties
The counsel for the appellants contended that the name of these appellants are not mentioned in the complaint and FIR. He further submitted that the wife of one of the appellant/accused is pregnant and due for delivery and therefore the presence of the appellant/accused is required to take care of his wife.
Per contra, High Court Government Pleader contended that the investigation is in progress and that the presence of persons involved in the alleged offence is recorded in CCTV.
Courts Observation and Judgment
The bench at the very outset taking note of the facts of the case observed, "Learned Sessions Judge has perused the CCTV footage and observed that both groups were enraged and they were holding stones and there are CCTV footage that Yankappa Talavar and Pashavali were taken. Learned Sessions Judge has also observed that CCTV footage shows the involvement of accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 17, 20 , 22, 27, 28 , 29 , 31, 32, 33 , 34, 37 and 38. Learned Sessions Judge has also observed in the impugned order that the place in which the incident occurred and damage caused in the village shows that there is a clash between two groups and further observed that there is murder of each person in each group. There is not only damage to the public property but also damage to the private property."
The bench further observed, "The Trial Court has also observed that if the appellants/accused Nos.29 and 31 are released on bail, they may cause further disturbance in the village . The Court has also observed that for the safety of the society it is just and necessary to keep the accused in jail, as the village is now coming into control and there is a heat of incident in the village."
The bench dismissing the appeal remarked, "Merely because the wife of appellant/accused No.29 is pregnant and her due date of delivery is 06.11.2022 as per medical records, is not a ground for grant of bail at this stage when the investigation is in progress."
The bench taking note of the above dismissed the appeals.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
