Allowed

Smt.Sumithra v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Aug 2022CRL.P/3574/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of Karnataka High Court allowed bail petition of a female accused involved in murder charge. Grant denied initial bail it withdrawn before charge filed; court noted second accused already granted bail and with no material disentitling petitioner to bail discharged on personal bond and sureties with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by taking personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties for like sum subject to conditions.

Smt.Sumithra Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 3574/2022

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

SMT.SUMITHRA W/O SIDDABEERAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ANGANAVADI WORKER R/AT S.C.COLONY NEAR AMBEDKAR BHAVAN DUNTHUR VILLAGE KADALLI POST SATHANUR HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562126

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI K SURESH DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SATHANUR POLICE KANAKAPURA TALUK KANAKAPURA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI ROHITH GOWDA.B.G, HCGP)

¶12

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN

¶13

¶14

CR.NO.153/2021 OF SATHNOOR POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 302 AND 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KANAKAPURA IN C.C.NO.1977/2022.

¶15

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

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Heard Sri K. Suresh Desai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Rohith Gowda B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State.

¶18

The present petition is filed as a successive bail

¶19

application. Earlier bail application filed by the petitioner came to be withdrawn at the stage of investigation of the crime. After filing of the charge sheet the present petition is filed. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, learned counsel of the petitioner has filed a copy of the order passed in Crl.P.3633/2022 dated 21.04.2022, wherein the paramour of the petitioner who is arraigned as second accused has been granted bail by this Court after contest.

¶20

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail on the ground of parity, more so, when the petitioner being a lady.

¶22

Material on record reveals that the petitioner and the second accused hatched a plan to take away the life of the husband of the petitioner, as there was a illicit relationship between the second accused and the petitioner.

¶23

Learned High Court Government Pleader however opposes the bail application that the ground of parity is not available to the petitioner inasmuch as this Court while accepting the bail request of second accused - Sri Vijayakumar, has taken note of the fact that the second accused was not present at the spot.

¶24

Admittedly, these are all matters which are required to be considered during the trial. Entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and voluntary statement of the accused and recovery thereof. At this point of time, this Court is of the considered opinion that

¶25

¶26

the material on record does not disentitle petitioner to obtain an order of grant of bail by resorting the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. More so, when the second accused has been granted bail.

¶27

Without expressing further opinion on the merits of the matter, following order is passed.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The Petition is allowed.

¶30

The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on taking a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees only) with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

¶31

The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly tamper the prosecution evidence or hamper the investigation process in any manner.

¶32

Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Ramanagara District without prior permission.

¶33

¶34

(5) Petitioner shall attend the court regularly.

¶35

(6) The petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶36

Violation of any of the above conditions, would entitle

¶37

the prosecution to seek for cancellation of bail.

¶38

Ordered accordingly.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Smt.Sumithra v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sumithra 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

M/S Lilly Labels Vs Sajawat Industries Limited

Sri Ravikumar Vs Sri C K Lavakumar

Karnataka Tamil Christian Welfare Association Vs Rev. Bernard Moras

Sri K S Satyanarayana Vs Sri Lingaiah

Ramesha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagajeevan Ram Vidya Samsthe Vs Panchajanya Vidya Peeta Welfare Trust