Dismissed

Smt. Jayalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2023CRL.P/257/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka rejected a bail petition filed by a woman accused of murder under Sections 302, 201, and 34 IPC. The court held that charges and evidence indicate guilt and there is no merit in the bail grounds.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition No. 257 of 2023 is rejected.

What the court decided

Smt. Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 257 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O DESHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.57, FARM HOUSE VASHISHTA FARM MILK DAIRY ROAD SOMASHETTYHALLI CHIKKABANAVARA POST BENGALURU CITY-560090. (THE PETITIONER IS IN CUSTODY SINCE 30.11.2022)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. GIRISH M K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE YESHWANTHAPURA SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU-560090.

¶15

REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP)

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.439 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN CR.NO.279/2022 OF SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 302, 201 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Sri. Girish M. K., learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. S. Vishwamurthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶25

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner above named most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

¶26

1) An order enlarging the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.279/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code registered by the Soladevanahalli Police, Bangalore on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District.

¶27

2) Issue such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶30

circumstances of the case and allow this petition in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶31

Brief facts of the case are as under:

¶32

Sri Kadegowda, son of Sri Manchegowda, lodged a complaint with Soladevanahalli Police Station on 30.11.2022 which was registered in Crime No.279/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶33

The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the

¶34

complainant has got a younger brother by name Deshegowda and he was married to the petitioner herein about 16-17 years earlier and Deshegowda and the present petitioner were living in Somashettyhalli and Deshegowda was working in Vashishta Farm and petitioner is working in a Garments Factory.

¶35

It is further mentioned in the complaint that on 27.11.2022 at about 3.30 p.m. the complainant received a call from the present petitioner that she is leaving for outstation and she enquired whether her husband Deshegowda has visited the Village of the complainant.

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶38

The complainant replied that he has not come there and on 28.11.2022, the petitioner lodged a missing complaint with Soladevanahalli Police Station.

¶39

After so registering the missing complaint, the police were investigating the matter. On 30.11.2022, Soladevanahalli Police apprehended the first accusedRajesh and based on his voluntary statement, the police were able to arrest the present petitioner also. The voluntary statement of the first accused revealed that both the accused persons hatched a plan to take away the life

¶40

of Deshegowda, as he was objecting for the illicit relationship between the accused persons.

¶41

Based on the voluntary statement, the police were also able to recover the dead body from a gutter which was situated on the road side in Kempegowdanadoddi, Ramangara District, which is a far off from the place of residence of the deceased.

¶42

On recovery of such materials and the weapons used, police filed charge sheet against the accused persons and accused persons are facing the trial.

¶43

5 - CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶44

When the matter stood thus, petitioner applied for

¶45

grant of bail which was turned down by the learned District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, by order dated 27.12.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.2309/2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶46

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri Girish M.K., learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that even according to the charge sheet materials, the only role that is assigned to the present petitioner is that she allowed the first accused to enter the house by keeping open the front door of the house without bolting and thereafter assisted him in murdering the deceased, who is none other than the husband of the petitioner and entire act is attributable to first accusedRajesh and in fact, he is the person who strangulated the deceased with a nylon rope and thereafter, shifted the dead body in a bag and threw it in an unknown place and therefore, petitioner is entitled for grant of bail. He also pressed into service that the petitioner being a lady,

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶49

proviso under Section 437 Cr.P.C. would be applicable to

¶50

the petitioner and therefore, sought for grant of bail.

¶51

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes the bail petition on the ground that the police have invoked Section 34 IPC and by death of the deceased, it is the petitioner who is stand to gain and therefore, the individual role assigned to the petitioner loses its significance in deciding the case of the prosecution and sought for rejection of bail. He also pointed out that knowing fully well that her husband was murdered in the intervening night of 26.11.2022 and 27.11.2022, the petitioner has gone to Soladevanahalli Police Station and lodged a missing complaint which shows the guilty mind of the petitioner and therefore, sought for rejection of the bail.

¶52

In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶53

On such perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the relationship between the accused

¶54

¶55

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶56

No.1 and the accused No.2 is more than that of a teacher and a student.

¶57

When this intimacy was noticed by the deceased, he had objected for the same. However, the accused persons depicted as if they are sister and brother for the rest of the world but they had illicit relationship.

¶58

When the deceased started objecting too much for the relationship between the accused persons, both the accused persons hatched a plan to take away the life of the deceased so as to have their illicit relationship uninterrupted.

¶59

Accordingly, on 26.11.2022, the petitioner noticing that the deceased was under the influence of liquor, telephoned to the first accused and brought him to the place of incident and accused No.1 came in a car with a rope and sat on the chest of the deceased and strangulated him with a rope until the deceased breathed his last and thereafter, both of them packed the dead body into a bag and both of them went to the petrol pump and got filled the petrol and thereafter accused No.1 brought

¶60

¶61

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶62

back the accused No.2 to her place and he alone took the

¶63

dead body through the NICE road and near Kempegowdanadoddi of Ramanagar District, threw the dead body in an unknown gutter.

¶64

Knowing fully about all these aspects of the matter, very cunningly, the petitioner enquired the complainant as to whether the deceased has visited his Village. When she received the reply that the deceased

¶65

has not visited the village of the complainant, she went to Soladevanahalli Police Station on 28.11.2022 and lodged a missing complaint.

¶66

On 30.11.2022 the petitioner and the other accused person were apprehended by the Police and based on the voluntary statement, dead body is recovered and so also the rope, bag and the car which were used in the incident, were seized by the police.

¶67

These are all the prima facie materials against the petitioner in the charge sheet. Whether at all these things happened in the same fashion or not, is a matter

¶68

¶69

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶70

that has to be decided by the Trial Court after full-fledged trial.

¶71

Further, that the material available on record at this stage, prima facie points out all guilt towards both the accused persons. It is the present petitioner who would stand to gain and it is her husband who has been done to death by accused No.1 and keeping the said aspect of the matter secret and lodging a missing complaint itself shows the prima facie guilty mind of the accused-petitioner in the incident.

¶72

Further, that the material on record at this stage, would definitely disentitle the present petitioner from obtaining an order of grant of bail by resorting to the special powers vested in this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶73

Even though the case is based on circumstantial evidence, it is not a rule that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, an accused is entitled for grant of bail ipso facto . Taking note of the charge sheet materials on record and also the role played by the present

¶74

10 -

¶75

CRL.P No. 257 of 2023

¶76

petitioner in the incident, this Court is of the considered

¶77

opinion that there is no merit in any one of the grounds

¶78

urged in the bail petition. Accordingly, pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

Criminal Petition is rejected.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

JT/-

Smt. Jayalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Smt. Jayalakshmi 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 Harisha Vs the State by

Gowrisha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sharath a P @ Sharu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Harisha Vs the State by C N Halli Police Station

Infanulla R Vs the State of Karnataka

Syed Parveez Vs State of Karnataka