Dismissed

Mrs Shraddha v. State by Mangalore South Police Station

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2014CRL.P/6487/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by a petitioner charged with murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court held that despite the petitioner being a female and the guarantor for bail due to being the second accused, the graveness of the offence and prima facie evidence precluded bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; trial directed to conclude within six months.

Mrs Shraddha Vs State by Mangalore South… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

Crl.P 6487/14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6487 OF 2014

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MRS SHRADDHA D/O JAYANTH KARKERA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT THANISH NILAYA, FERRY ROAD, BOLAR, MANGALORE, PIN CODE-575 001.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI: P P HEGDE, ADV)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE BY MANGALORE SOUTH POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI:B VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP)

¶16

Crl.P 6487/14

¶17

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CRIME NO.70/14 OF MANGALORE SOUTH P.S., MANGALORE, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302, 201 OF IPC.

¶19

THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court for

¶22

grant of bail for having been arrested and chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

¶23

The facts reveal that the petitioner

¶24

had illicit relationship with the second accused.

¶25

The second accused had married Sowmya (deceased)

¶26

and they have a child through the wedlock. On 23.03.2014, the complainant was informed about the

¶27

death of his daughter Sowmya i.e., the wife of second accused. He came to the house of second accused and found the dead body with burns. He suspected that his daughter was killed due to the illicit relationship between the second accused

¶28

3 Crl.P 6487/14

¶29

and the petitioner and stating that the deceased

¶30

had no such reasons for committing suicide, approached the police and submitted a complaint. In the course of investigation, petitioner has been arrested.

¶31

Heard the learned Counsel for both the

¶32

sides.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶34

submits that the petitioner is innocent and that she is a woman and under the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. she falls within the purview of exception and the benefit has to be extended to the petitioner. He also submits that as the second accused has been granted bail, on the principle of parity, the petitioner is also entitled to the bail as sought for.

¶35

On the other hand, learned High Court

¶36

Government Pleader opposes the bail application and submits that there is a prima facie material

¶37

¶38

Crl.P 6487/14

¶39

against the petitioner for the offence and therefore, seeks rejection of the bail

¶40

application.

¶41

The investigation is complete and the

¶42

chargesheet has been filed. Perusal of the material placed on record reveals that the petitioner had illicit relationship with the second accused and she wanted to marry him. The wife of second accused was an impediment and therefore, she is said to have made the deceased to consume sleeping pills on the date of incident i.e., 23.03.2014 in the night. When the deceased

¶43

after taking pills was sleeping, the petitioner tried to kill her by smothering by the use of pillow. When the deceased woke up, she struggled and resisted the act, at that time, the petitioner

¶44

is said to have sustained injuries. After the deceased was killed, the petitioner is said to have taken the child and went away.

¶45

Crl.P 6487/14

¶46

¶47

prosecution has collected the material and it reveals that there is evidence regarding circumstances of last seen and the petitioner having come out of the house with the child after the incident. Furthermore, on the arrest of petitioner, during interrogation, she volunteered to produce certain articles inclusive of ring of the deceased, which was given by the second accused, the pillow and clothes of the deceased. That apart, on the date of arrest of petitioner, she was taken to the hospital and as many as 5 injuries were found on the body inclusive of abrasions and contusions and the material reveals that there was a struggle by the deceased and at

¶48

that time, she has caused injuries to the petitioner and this appears to be a strong circumstances which has been placed on record.

¶49

Prima facie, perusal of the material

¶50

placed on record reveals the offence under Section

¶51

Crl.P 6487/14

¶52

¶53

302 IPC. It is no doubt true that the woman is an exception provided under Section 437 Cr.P.C. But merely on the ground that the petitioner is a woman, the discretionary relief of bail cannot be granted in case, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or sentence of death.

¶54

That apart, the deceased was an

¶55

innocent wife of second accused. The petitioner is said to have illicit relationship with the second accused and to do away with the life of deceased with an intention to marry the second accused, it appears that such a heinous offence has been committed. This motive put forth by the prosecution and the other material which has been placed on record shall have to be weighted in exercise of discretion vested with the Court.

¶56

Taking into consideration the strong

¶57

motive put forth and also the material placed on record, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot seek bail and the principle of parity is

¶58

¶59

Crl.P 6487/14

¶60

not applicable for the reason that the second

¶61

accused has not participated in the crime and directly was not responsible for the death of his wife. Anyhow, as it is submitted before the Court that chargesheet has been filed, the interest of justice would be met by directing the Court below to conclude the trial expeditiously. The request of the petitioner has to be rejected.

¶62

Accordingly, the petition is rejected. As the case is committed in Sessions Case No.64/2014, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to conclude the trial preferably within six months from the date of communication of this order. In case, if the matter is not concluded within the aforesaid time, the petitioner is at liberty to renew her request for bail.

¶63

*bgn/-

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

Mrs Shraddha v. State by Mangalore South Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Shraddha v. State by Mangalore South Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurudath Vs State of Karanataka

Sunilkumar @ Gopi Vs State by Kadugodi Police

Mrs Vishalakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Nayaz @ Nayaz Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bande Manja @ H S Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

A P Sreedhar Vs the State of Karnataka by