Partly allowed

Surya S R v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2021CRL.P/2535/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court hearing a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding an offence under Sections 302, 201, 120B and 34 IPC. The court dismissed bail for the alleged principal offender (Accused No. 1) and granted bail with stringent conditions to two female co-accused (Accused Nos. 2 and 3).

What did the court decide?

Bail petition for Accused No. 1 dismissed. Bail granted to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000, sureties, and six specific conditions of conduct and appearance.

Surya S R Vs State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2535/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SURYA S.R. AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O. RANGADASAIAH

¶9

SMT. GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O. RACHAIAH R/AT SHYADANAHALLI VILLAGE MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 570 009

¶10

SMT. PAVITHRA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS W/O. SURYA S.R.

¶11

PETITIONER NOS.1 & 3 ARE R/AT BOVISHETTY PALYA KOONAPPANA AGRAHARA 2^ND PHASE, ELECTRONIC CITY BENGALURU – 560 100

¶12

AND ALSO RESIDING AT SHYADANAHALLI VILLAGE MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT – 570 009

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI P.NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY METAGALLI POLICE STATION MYSURU CITY REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.91/2020 OF METAGALLI P.S., MYSURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for granting regular bail in Crime No.91/2020 registered by Metagalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

¶25

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that one Sri Siddesha, the father of the deceased Jayalakshmi has filed a complaint on 02.09.2020 alleging that he has married to accused No.3-Pavithra and the child Jayalakshmi, aged about 6 years, born out of their marriage,. Due to some misunderstanding, they living separately. The deceased Jayalakshmi was residing with accused No.3. The divorce petition also filed which pending before the Family Court Accused No.2-Gowramma is the mother of accused No.3. Accused No.3 was working in private factory and she came and contact with accused No.1 who is also working in the same factory as co-worker and they said to be married and having a female child aged about 3 months.

¶27

On 25.08.2020 at about 7 a.m., the complaint

¶28

received the information from one Siddaraju that his daughter Jayalakshmi was dead. Immediately, he went to

¶29

¶30

the house of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and found the dead body. The petitioners not allowed him to go near the dead body. Later they have buried the dead body. Suspecting the death of his daughter, the complainant filed the complaint against them.

¶31

The police after registering the case, executed the body and subjected to the postmortem, where it was revealed that it was homicide death due to compression of neck. Hence, the police have arrested these petitioners on 04.09.2020 and they have been remanded to judicial custody. The petitioners have moved the bail application before the Session Court which came to be rejected. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶32

Having heard the arguments and looking into the facts of the case, accused No.1 said to have married accused No.2 and having a female child, aged about 3 months. Before this marriage, the petitioner/accused No.3 married to the complainant about 7 years ago. Out of their wedlock, the deceased child-Jayalakshmi, aged about 6 years, was born

¶33

¶34

and she was residing with her mother in their house. After her death, the petitioners buried the dead body. Later on the postmortem examination, it was found that the death was due to compression of neck throatily or manual strangulation. On perusal of the entire material on record, though there are no eye witnesses to the incident except their voluntary statements. On perusal of the voluntary statements the main allegation against accused No.1 only who murdered the deceased by putting a pillow on the face. Accused No.2 said to have held the hands and accused No.3 said to have held the legs and caused the death of the deceased child. The allegation against accused No.1 is that he was actually committed the murder of the deceased and accused Nos.2 & 3 who were assisted to commit the murder. Accused Nos.2 & 3 are the women and they are in judicial custody since 04.09.2020 more than 9 months. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has also been filed. There is a child for accused Nos.1 and 3, aged about 3 months at the time of incident.

¶35

¶36

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that accused No.1 is not entitled for bail, accordingly, the petition against accused No.1 is dismissed. However, by imposing stringent conditions, if the petitioner Nos.2 & 3/accused Nos.2 & 3 are enlarged on bail, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution. Hence, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The criminal petition is allowed in part .

¶39

Bail petition of accused No.1 is dismissed.

¶40

The Trial Court/Committal Court is directed to release the petitioner Nos.2 & 3/accused Nos.2 & 3 on bail in Crime No.91/2020 registered by Metagalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201,120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, subject to the following conditions:-

¶41

i) Petitioners shall execute personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh

¶42

¶43

only) each with two sureties for likesum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶44

ii) Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly;

¶45

iii) Petitioner shall not indulge himself in similar offences strictly;

¶46

iv) Petitioner shall take the trial without causing any delay;

¶47

v) Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission of the police as well as trial court; and

¶48

vi) Petitioner shall furnish all the Identity Card proof, Aadhaar card etc., before the court before the release.

¶49

If any of the conditions are violated, the

¶50

prosecution is at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

KTY

Surya S R v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surya S R v. State of Karnataka

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

Salman Khan @ Salman Vs State by Yeshwanthpur P.S.

Okafar Ifeanyichukwu Henry Vs State by Karnataka

Kiran Pai Vs the State by the

Mohammed Faraz Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna C M @ Vs State by Kestur Police Station

Wasim @ Waseem Akram Vs the State of Karnataka