Dismissed

Mr Rateesh K v. State by Bypanahalli Ps

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2022CRL.P/9252/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. regarding an offence under Section 306 IPC. The court held that the prima facie evidence showed the petitioner was present and shifted the deceased, indicating proximity to the suicide, thereby precluding bail during investigation.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking bail in Cr.No.207/2021 was rejected, with liberty to approach after filing the charge sheet.

Mr Rateesh K Vs State by Bypanahalli Ps — Bail and Remand | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9252/2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RATEESH K S/O MR. SHIVANANDA T AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS (DOB 15.05.1986) PERMANENTLY R/AT THEKKATTU THODI HOUSE KANAYAM POST, SHORNUR PALAKKAD DISTRICT KERALA STATE – 679 121

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RENJITH SHANKAR V, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE BY BYPANAHALLI PS REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU HIGH COURT BUILDING – 560 001

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.207/2021 OF BAIYAPPANAHALLI POLICE STATION, HALASURU SUB-DIVISION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶15

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail for the petitioner in Crime No.207/2021 of Baiyappanahalli Police Station, Halasuru Sub-Division for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶20

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶21

The factual matrix of the case is that the daughter of the deceased had lodged the complaint stating that this petitioner used to visit the house of the deceased frequently and also used to quarrel with the deceased to give him money. For the past 6 to 8 months, the petitioner used to quarrel with the deceased frequently for the said purpose and that on 15.11.2021 also the petitioner quarreled with the deceased for the same. This petitioner insisted the deceased to give money and if she doesn’t give the money, he abetted her to commit suicide. That

¶22

¶23

on 16.11.2021, when the deceased daughter came to house from the college, this petitioner was in the house and her mother was inside the bathroom and he told that they fought again for the money purpose and then she went out and came back around 5.30 p.m. At that time also, this petitioner was banging the bathroom door and after taking the photo over her phone, she saw that her mother was committed suicide by hanging. Based on the complaint, police have registered the case and the matter is under investigation.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner himself shifted the deceased to the Abhaya Asta Hospital and thereafter took her to C.V.Raman Nagar General Hospital and there the doctor has declared that the deceased has brought dead. The counsel would submit that in order to show the prima facie case that there was a abetment to commit suicide, there is no material. This petitioner was an exservice man and if he enlarged on bail, he will abide by the conditions imposed by the Court. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.

¶25

¶26

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

¶27

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that this petitioner was very much present at the time of the alleged incident and he was frequently visited the house of the deceased and insisted for money and had the illicit relationship with the deceased and the matter is under investigation and the material has to be colleted by the Investigating Officer. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶28

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the complaint given by the daughter of the deceased it is clear that on the date of taking a extreme step of committing suicide, this petitioner was very much present at the spot and it is also not disputed that the petitioner only shifted the deceased to the hospital and apart from that the complaint averment specifically discloses that there was a quarrel between the petitioner and the deceased with regard to the money matter and having taken note of the contents of the complaint and the matter is under investigation and prima facie discloses the proximity to cause of death in taking extreme step of committing

¶29

¶30

suicide and hence, there are no grounds to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner.

¶31

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶32

following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petition is rejected.

¶35

The petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court after

¶36

filing the charge sheet.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Mr Rateesh K v. State by Bypanahalli Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Rateesh K v. State by Bypanahalli Ps

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

Ravi Vs the State of Karnataka

Dharanikumar P K Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt.Bina Rajesh Dedhia Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nagamani Vs the State of Karnataka

Salman Pasha @ Salman Vs State by

C H Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of Karnataka