Dismissed

Swami T K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2022CRL.A/1341/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal against rejection of bail in a murder case where the appellant was charged with drowning his wife, the High Court upheld the trial court's order, finding sufficient grounds to believe the appellant's involvement in the crime and holding that parity for bail did not apply as a co-accused was only implicated for caste abuse. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal against the order rejecting bail is dismissed.

Swami T K Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

Crl.A.No.1341/2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE Mrs.JUSTICE K S MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1341/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SWAMI.T.K S/O KUMARA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT THIRUMALAPURA VILLAGE CHINNAKURALI HOBLI PANDAVAPURA TALUK MANDYA - 514 343.

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.MOHAN C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION MANDYA DISTRICT REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

SMT.MAHADEVAMMA W/O H.MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O NANJEGOWDANADODDI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI: SHANKAR H.S.,HCGP, FOR R-1 VIDE ORDER DTD.01.02.2022 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, R-2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

Crl.A.No.1341/2021

¶19

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.05.2021 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.29/2021 ON THE FILE OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA AND RELEASE THEAPPELLANT ON REGULAR BAIL IN CR.NO.292/2020 (SPL.C.NO.29/2021) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302, 201, 498A,504 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R),3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT.

¶20

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application, accused No.1 in Crime No.292/2020 of Pandavapura Police Station has preferred the above appeal.

¶23

Appellant is accused No.1 and his father is accused No.2 in Crime No.292/2020 of Pandavapura Police Station. Both of them are charge sheeted in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 498-A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On taking cognizance, the

¶24

¶25

Crl.A.No.1341/2021

¶26

said case is pending before V Additional District Judge, Mandya in Special Case No.29/2021.

¶27

The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

¶28

The appellant and victim - Meghashri loved each other

¶29

and married in 2014 at Sri Ramanjaneya temple, Hosakerehalli, Bengaluru. Said marriage was not attended by families of both of them. C.W.1 is the mother of Meghashri. After marriage, Meghashri and appellant started living together separately. Two months after marriage, appellant abandoned Meghashri and joined his parents. When she approached them and questioned his conduct, accused No.2 abused her with reference to her caste. Thereafter on her insistence, appellant and Meghashri lived together in the rented house of Smt.Savitramma - C.W.8 for some time. Then, he shifted to Bengaluru and lived in a rented house of Nagaraj - C.W.11. Since the appellant subjected Meghashri to cruelty, she had filed a complaint in Metagalli Police Station, Mysuru. When Meghashri started insisting the appellant to get their marriage registered, he took her to Pandavapura and from there to Srirangapatna in the guise of registration of marriage. On 22.03.2015 they stayed at Manjunatha Lodge, Srirangapatna.

¶30

¶31

Crl.A.No.1341/2021

¶32

On 22.03.2015 at 9.00 p.m., the appellant in order to get rid of her, took her to V.C.Nala near Banaghatta Gate, drowned her into the water and committed her murder.

¶33

The appellant is in judicial custody since 09.11.2020. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected his bail application on the ground that there is sufficient material to believe that accused has committed murder. Aggrieved by the said order, above appeal is filed.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is delay of 6 years in filing the complaint. He submits that appellant is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed. He further submits that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to accused No.2. Therefore, on the ground of parity, appellant is entitled for bail.

¶35

Learned HCGP opposes the petition on the ground that there is sufficient material to show appellant's involvement in the crime. He further submits that allegations of committing the murder are against the appellant and therefore, parity does not apply.

¶36

¶37

Crl.A.No.1341/2021

¶38

As per the charge sheet records, accused No.2 joined the appellant only in abusing the victim with reference to

¶39

the caste and declined to accept her in his family. The allegations of committing the murder are only against the present appellant. Therefore, the ground of parity does not apply.

¶40

It is no doubt true that case is based on circumstantial evidence. However, there is sufficient material in the charge sheet to show that appellant and victim lived together for about four years as husband and wife. It is no doubt true that till filing of the charge sheet, dead body was not traced. However, conduct of the appellant also matters. The victim lived with him. He has to explain where she went and if she is missing, what efforts he did to trace her. He has neither informed the police nor parents of the victim about her missing. Order of the trial Court reveals that Investigating Officer reported to the trial Court that C.W.1 identified the skeleton as that of her daughter and samples were sent for DNA examination.

¶41

In the aforesaid circumstances, the trial Court is justified in accepting that there are reasonable grounds to believe the involvement of the appellant. This Court does not

¶42

¶43

Crl.A.No.1341/2021

¶44

find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.

¶45

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

*sp

Swami T K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami T K 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

Kenda @ Kendaganna Swamy Vs State by H D Kote Police

Sri G K Balakrishna Vs Smt Manjula

G T Basavaraj Vs the State by Kote Police Station

Smt Sowmya Vs Sri J Umesh

Lohith Naika Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraja Vs the State of Karnataka