Allowed

Kalpana v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2021CRL.P/3129/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition challenging committal for murder (IPC 302), the Court examined factors including the completion of investigation and the petitioner's role as an accused. Convincing itself that custody amounts to pre-trial punishment, the Court granted bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was enlarged on bail upon execution of a bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions restricting new offences, witness tampering, and mandatory appearance.

Kalpana Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3129 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

KALPANA W/O LATE BEEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O DODDARAYAPPANAHALLI THUBUGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THYAMAGONDLU POLICE STATION THYAMAGONDLU, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST-562 132. REPTD BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI: H.R.SHOWRI, HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C.PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.83/2020 (C.C.NO.263/2021) OF THYAMAGONDLU P.S., BANGALORE DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201, 120B R/W 149 OF IPC.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner-accused No.3 is before this Court seeking grant of bail in Crime No.83/2020 of Thyamagondlu Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant-G.Santhosh.

¶20

Brief facts of the case are that, the informantG.Santhosh lodged the first information against unknown persons stating that on 22.11.2020, he noticed a TATA ACE vehicle standing by side of the road, when he was leaving to Nelamangala. Even while he was coming back, he noticed the said vehicle and found a person in the driver’s seat. When he gone near the vehicle, he found that the person had sustained injuries and he was found dead. He suspected that somebody might have caused his death. Therefore, the informant filed the first information with Thyamagondlu Police and requested to register the

¶21

¶22

case and to investigate into the matter. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation.

¶23

Heard Sri.Sunil Kumar Patel, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.R.Showri, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the materials placed on record.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3. The deceased is her husband and she is innocent and law abiding citizen. She has not committed any offence as alleged. She has been falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. She was apprehended on 23.11.2020 and since then she is in judicial custody. The investigation has been completed and the charge sheet is also filed. There are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Even the circumstantial evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is quite contradictory. The call detail records pertaining to accused Nos.2 and 3 are also contradictory to the case made out. There are no prima-facie materials to

¶25

¶26

constitute the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the present petitioner. As per the charge sheet, there are sixty witnesses and trial in the case will take sufficiently long time. The petitioner/accused No.3 is required to look after her minor child. Since the investigation is already completed, detention of the petitioner in custody would amount to pre-trial punishment. The petitioner is the permanent resident of the address mentioned in the cause title of the petition and she is ready and willing to abide by any of the conditions that would be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to allow the petition.

¶27

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the offences. The incident had taken place in the house of the present petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.3. She has caused the death of the deceased. The call detail records were collected and the mobile phone

¶28

¶29

was recovered from her. The charge sheet materials makes out strong prima-facie case against the petitioner. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner/accused No.3 is not entitled for grant of bail. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶30

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶31

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.?”

¶32

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶33

R E A S O N S

¶34

The allegations made against the petitioner is

¶35

of serious nature. As per the charge sheet, accused No.3 who is the petitioner herein had illicit relationship with accused No.1. Since the deceased-husband came to know about the said illicit relationship, accused Nos.1 and 3 with

¶36

¶37

the help of other accused, conspired together to cause the death of the deceased. In furtherance of their conspiracy, accused No.3 called other accused to her house on 21.11.2020 at around 12.00 in the mid night and all the accused have caused the death of the deceased. After causing the death of the deceased, all the accused have shifted the dead body in the Car belonging to CW.4 in order to dispose of the body in a unknown place. They have also taken a TATA Ace vehicle belonging to the deceased. Since TATA Ace vehicle was struck in the middle, they had left the vehicle at the spot keeping the dead body in the driver’s seat, to project it as if it is an accidental death.

¶38

On perusal of the charge sheet, serious allegations are made against the present petitioner as well. It is stated that she has committed specific overt acts in causing the death of her husband. Admittedly, the investigation is completed and the charge sheet is also filed. Therefore, detention of the petitioner in custody

¶39

¶40

would amount to pre-trial punishment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail subject to conditions which will take care of the apprehension expressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the petitioner may abscond or may tamper or threaten the prosecution witnesses.

¶41

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

¶42

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

The petition is allowed.

¶45

The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in Crime No.83/2020 of Thyamagondlu Police Station on obtaining the bond in a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) with two sureties for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court, subject to the following conditions:

¶46

a. The petitioner shall not commit similar offences;

¶47

¶48

b. The petitioner shall not threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

¶49

c. The petitioner shall appear before the Court as and when required.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

SMJ

Kalpana v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana 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

Shanmukh @ Sanamukh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar @ Jangli Vs the State through

Vijay Laximi @ Vijaykumari Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Basavaraju S Hosamani Vs State of Karnataka

Naveen Kumar S M Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr.Goutham Krishna Vs the State of Karnataka