Dismissed

Smt Ambika v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2022CRL.A/1427/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed by a female appellant against bail refusal in a conspiracy case involving poisoning. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that gender alone does not mandate bail under Cr.P.C. testimony concerns over witness influence and the gravity of offences outweighed humanitarian considerations.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; bail application set aside; appellant to remain in custody.

Smt Ambika Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1427 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt. Ambika, Aged about 40 years, W/o Madesha @ Shagya Madesha @ Mahadevaswamy, Residing at : Martalli Village, Permanent of Shagya Grama, Kollegala Taluk – 571 440, Chamarajanagar District.

¶8

…Appellant

¶9

(By Sri Praveen C, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka by Rampura Police Station, Kollegala Taluk 571 440, Represented by the SPP, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶12

Rajamma, W/o Sidda Doreswamy Medu, Ramapura Hobli, Kollegala Taluk-571 440, Chamarajanagara District.

¶13

…Respondents

¶14

(By Sri V.S.Hegde, SPP-II along with Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP, for R1; Sri Y.L.Mahesh, Advocate, for R2)

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

This Criminal Appeal is filed under section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act praying to set aside the order dated 12.4.2022 in Spl. C. No. 72/2019 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, on the application filed by the appellant under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶17

This Criminal Appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This is an appeal under section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 12.4.2022 in Spl. Case 72/2019 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, on an application made by the appellant under section 439 Cr.P.C for bail.

¶20

The appellant is accused No.2 in Spl. Case 72/2019. She along with other accused are facing trial for the offences punishable under sections 118, 120B, 307, 326, 302 IPC and section 3(2)(v), v(a) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with

¶21

:: 3 ::

¶22

section 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 is the pontiff of a temple namely Kichugathi Maramma Temple situated at Sulavadi Village, Kollegal Taluk, Chamarajanagar District. Temple is being managed by a trust. It appears that there was rivalry between the first accused and the trustees. The allegation is that accused No.1 had illicit relationship with the appellant who is accused No.2 and taking advantage of this relationship, they hatched conspiracy with other accused to tarnish the image of the trustees and to accomplish their goal, poison was mixed in the Prasadam to be distributed to the devotees of the temple who had gathered on 14.12.2018 in connection with a function. As a result nearly 17 persons died, many fell ill and even the birds and animals which ate the Prasadam also died. So far as appellant No.2 is concerned, the allegation against her is that she bought insecticide for mixing it in the Prasadam and gave it to the cook.

¶23

:: 4 ::

¶24

I have heard Sri Praveen C, learned

¶25

counsel for the appellant, Sri V.S.Hegde, learned State Public Prosecutor-II and Sri Mahesh Y.L, learned counsel for second respondent.

¶26

Sri Praveen C submitted that appellant would not claim bail touching the merits of the case. His two submissions are that appellant is a woman and having regard to section 437 Cr.P.C, the appellant may be released on bail. In support of this point of argument he referred to judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs CBI [Laws (SC) 2022 5 124]. Secondly, he argued that there are nearly 350 witnesses to be examined. So far 23 witnesses have been examined and still there are many witnesses to be examined. Disposal of the case on merits will take some more time. The appellant has been in custody for nearly four years. Therefore appellant is required to be

¶27

:: 5 ::

¶28

released on bail. He also submitted that never before filing the application under section 439 Cr.P.C which the trial court dismissed by passing the impugned order, the appellant had made any application for bail, but the trial court has made a wrong observation that her earlier application had stood dismissed.

¶29

Sri V.S.Hegde submitted that the appellant

¶30

and accused No.1 stand on same footing. There was illicit relationship between them. Merely because appellant is a woman and that the conclusion of trial may take some more time, the appellant is not entitled to claim bail. He submitted that this court refused bail to accused No.1 though the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Accused No.1 being the pontiff wields enormous influence on the witnesses. Now if appellant is released on bail, in view of her relationship with accused No.1, it is sure that she

¶31

:: 6 ::

¶32

will try to win over the witnesses. In regard to trial he submitted that the court below is recording evidence on day-to-day basis and in view of the gravity of the offences there are large number of witnesses to be examined. Actually there is no delay at all. The appellant cannot complain of delay.

¶33

Sri Mahesh Y.L, learned counsel for respondent No.2, referred to para 22 of the order passed by the coordinate bench of this court in Criminal Petition 2153/2019 filed by accused No.1 and argued that this court has already observed that the accused No.1 will certainly influence the witnesses. These observations apply to the appellant as well. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indrani Pratim Mukerjea, he submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court granted bail noticing the fact that the accused therein was in jail for more than 6½ years and

¶34

:: 7 ::

¶35

that the trial did not commence for considerable time because of non-availability of the Presiding Officer of the court. This is not the case here. Therefore he argued for dismissing the appeal.

¶36

The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Though normally in a case based on circumstantial evidence, bail is granted once investigation is completed, it is not a rule always and there are instances of declining bail in the background of facts and circumstances. Appellant claims bail for two reasons mentioned above. Though it is true that the proviso to section 437(1) states that the court may direct an accused to be released on bail if he is person under the age of 16 years or a woman or sick or infirm, it is not a mandatory rule that a woman can claim bail always. The gravity of the offence and other circumstances certainly matter. With great respect it may be stated that the Hon’ble Supreme

¶37

:: 8 ::

¶38

Court has not laid down any principle in the case of Indrani Mukerjea that bail should be granted if the accused is a woman. Bail was granted to the accused therein having regard to the circumstances that the accused was in custody for nearly 6½ years and that the trial had not commenced because of non-availability of Presiding Officer of the court. Therefore it was a decision on the facts.

¶39

In the case on hand, no doubt the appellant is in custody for many years. There is no denial of the fact that she had illicit relationship with accused No.1. The prosecution case is that accused No.1 and 2 hatched conspiracy with other accused. Therefore both these accused stand on the same footing. The coordinate bench of this court while declining bail to accused No.1 made a clear observation as to chances of witnesses being won over by him. Now

¶40

:: 9 ::

¶41

if bail is granted to the appellant who is accused No.2, in all probability she may be used as a tool by accused No.1 to influence the witnesses, in which event it is difficult to expect a fair trial. It should not be forgotten that nearly 17 innocent persons died and many fell ill on account of mixing of poison in the Prasadam . Therefore merely for the reason that she is a woman, she cannot claim bail under the provisions of section 437 of Cr.P.C.

¶42

So far as the trial is concerned, though there are many witnesses, the trial court is holding trial every day. The court below is not to be blamed for the delay, in fact it is not correct to say that there is delay. In a case of this type, where large number of witnesses are to be examined, conclusion of trial takes time. Ground realities cannot be ignored.

¶43

Sri Praveen C submitted that the daughter of the appellant has reached

¶44

:: 10 ::

¶45

marriageable age and this aspect can also be considered for granting bail. It may be a fact, but it cannot be a reason for granting bail. Larger interest of the society is involved. Fair trial is possible only if the appellant is inside the jail. In this view, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

ckl/-

Smt Ambika v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Ambika v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Harsha Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Haneef Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Seetharamu S/O T L Chikanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivaprasad @ Shivu @ Tinku Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jayarama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri V.D Kurtakoti Vs State by Cbi/Acb