Allowed

Sri K M Lokesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 May 2022CRL.P/1436/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused facing charges under Sections 498A, 306 and 506 IPC. Court held investigation concluded and no further custodial interrogation required, ordering release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and one solvent surety for like amount, along with standard bail conditions.

Sri K M Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1436 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI K M LOKESH S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHELLKERE KALIAN NAGARA POST, BENGALURU-560043.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

[BY SRI. SHARATH J.M., ADVOCATE]

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HENNUR POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶13

... RESPONDENT

¶14

[BY SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP]

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.282/2021 OF HENNUR P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 306, 506 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF THE 11^TH ACMM, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE.

¶16

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

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner is before this Court seeking enlargement on bail pertaining to crime No.282 of 2021 which is now numbered as C.C.No.51546 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 506, 498A and 306 of the IPC for it having been turned down by the XLV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.763 of 2022.

¶20

Heard Sri J.M.Sharath, learned counsel appearing for

¶21

the petitioner and Sri V.S.Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/State.

¶22

Facts in brief are as follows:-

¶23

The marriage between the petitioner/accused No.1 and the deceased - Smt. Shruthi had taken place 13 years ago. It is alleged by the complainant, mother of the deceased that the relationship between petitioner and the deceased had turned terribly sore and the petitioner had began to subject the deceased with physical and mental cruelty and also had physical

¶24

¶25

relationship with accused No.3. It is due to illicit relationship between accused No.1 and accused No.3, the wife of the petitioner committed suicide on 30-12-2021. On commission of such suicide, a complaint is registered by the mother of the deceased in Crime No.282 of 2021 for offences aforementioned. The petitioner was immediately taken to custody and has been in custody since 30-12-2021. After his arrest, the petitioner files an application seeking his enlargement on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. which is rejected by the learned Sessions Judge contending that the matter is still at the stage of investigation; the conduct of the petitioner and other accused creates a suspicion and prima facie support the case of the prosecution, as also, the fact that the petitioner would indulge in activities that would influence or tamper with prosecution witnesses. It is this rejection that drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶26

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the wife did commit suicide but there was no

¶27

¶28

instigation whatsoever on the part of the petitioner. No doubt the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased had turned sore, but necessary ingredients that are to be present for an offence to become punishable under Section 306 of the IPC are not available in the case at hand. Therefore, he seeks enlargement of the petitioner on bail, more particularly, in the light of the investigation having been concluded and the Police having filed their charge sheet.

¶29

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would refute the submissions and would seek to justify the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge and also submits that in view of the police filing the charge sheet bail should not be granted.

¶30

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

¶31

¶32

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

¶33

complaint narrates that accused No.1 had illicit relationship with accused No.3 who was also a distant relative of the family. It is further alleged that the petitioner had indulged in torture physical or mental upon his wife, which would become offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Whether the petitioner had instigated his wife to such an extent that suicide was the only option for the wife in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in plethora of cases will have to be thrashed out only in a full blown trial. The Police have completed their investigation and have filed charge sheet before the competent Court on 3-03-2022. Therefore, the necessity of the petitioner for any further custodial interrogation would not be required.

¶34

Though the post-mortem report indicates that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of hanging, the investigation for such hanging is only a matter of trial. Though the offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 306 and 498A of the IPC, the petitioner also does not have any criminal

¶35

¶36

antecedents. In the light of totality of circumstances narrated hereinabove, as also, the fact that the Police have completed the investigation and filed the final report, in my considered view, the petitioner would become entitled to enlargement on bail. Therefore, I deem it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶37

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This Criminal Petition is allowed and the petitioneraccused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail in Crime No.282 of 2021 of Hennur police station for the aforesaid offences pending on the file of 11^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru, on the following conditions:

¶40

(i) The petitioner shall furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) with one solvent surety for the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court;

¶41

¶42

(ii) The petitioner shall be regular in appearing before the Court on every date of hearing as also when called upon to do so by the trial Court;

¶43

(iii) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or cause any threat to any of the prosecution witness/s in any manner.

¶44

(iv) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the trial Court without prior permission.

¶45

(v) In the event of violation of any of the above terms, the above bail shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶46

The observations made above are only for the purpose of consideration of the application for bail and the same shall not in any manner influence the trial. The trial Court shall consider the case on its merits and without being influenced by this order.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

bkp CT:MJ

Sri K M Lokesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K M Lokesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Prashanth Sambargi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Mohammed Shameer Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ratan Babulal Lath Vs State of Karnataka

Shashi Poojari @ Shadow @ Shashikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Harisha C S Vs State of Karnataka

Hussain Modi Babu Vs State of Karnataka