Petitioner filed for anticipatory bail in suicide/murder case. High Court held Section 113(A) presumption inapplicable due to 12-year marriage span. Directed trial court to expedite regular bail consideration.
Granted direction to lower court to expedite regular bail consideration; anticipatory bail prayer dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15163/2013
BETWEEN :
Basawaraj S/o Ramanna Kajjal, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Naikal, Taluk: Shahapur, District Yadgir. … PETITIONER
(By Shri. Ganesh Naik, Advocate)
AND:
The State of Karnataka Through Wadigera Police Station.
… RESPONDENT
(By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code, by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Court to direct the respondent police Wadagera District Yadgir, to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.3/2013, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306 of Indian Penal Code.
2
This petition coming on for Orders this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Ningamma who is deceased. It is alleged that the death was unnatural and she had committed suicide on account of the continuous harassment and instigation by the present petitioner. It is not in dispute that Ninagamma was married to the petitioner about 12 years prior to the incident and they had two children by their marriage. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was also married to one Maremma by whom he had three other children. Notwithstanding the long period of marriage the death having occurred on account of Ningamma consuming pesticide, the prosecution has instituted the case alleging offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (hereinafter referred to as the
3
‘IPC’, for brevity). The petitioner having approached the court below for grant of anticipatory bail the court has rejected the petition on the observation that the there must be some strong reason or ground for the deceased Ningamma to take such an extreme step. Further, Since the matter is still under investigation on account of the untimely death of the deceased. If the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage there are chances of him influencing witnesses and even tampering with the evidence and therefore has rejected the same.
4
5
appear before the trial court and make out a case for regular bail, the present petition stands disposed of.
that the court below may not consider the bail petition expeditiously on account of pressure of work and the prospect of the petitioner being remanded to judicial custody till the consideration of the petition, looms large. To allay the apprehension of the petitioner, the court below is directed to expedite the consideration of the bail petition, if the petitioner should surrender and seek regular bail before the court below.
Sd/JUDGE
msr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 113(A) Evidence Act presumption of conspiracy to commit suicide applies when marriage was over 7 years prior to death.
Whether trial court erratically rejected anticipatory bail petition without considering regular bail on facts.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Basawaraj S/o Ramanna Kajjal
The State of Karnataka Through Wadigera Police Station
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
