Allowed

Mr. Girish N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Apr 2023CRL.P/711/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition challenged the rejection of bail under Section 439 CrPC for an accused in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The Court granted regular bail, noting the accused restrained the deceased's father-in-law and that no prior complaints existed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two like sureties and complying with specific conditions.

Mr. Girish N Vs State of Karnataka — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 711 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 711 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. GIRISH N, S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT LAKKURU POST, PEMMANAHALLY VILLAGE, LAKKURU, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 572130.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA C H, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DOBBESPETE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, (REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR), HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI VINAYAKA V.S, HCGP)

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 439 CR.PC PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN S.C.NO.179/2022 (CR.NO.26/2022) OF DOBBESPET P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,302 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶17

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

¶18

2 - CRL.P No. 711 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri.Hanumantharaya C.H., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vinayaka V.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶21

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

¶22

“WHEREFORE, the Petitioner in the above case most humbly prays this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant him the relief of Regular Bail in Crime No.26/22 (S.C.No.179/22) of Dobbespete Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302 r/w 34 IPC, 1860, and now pending on the file of VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL, AT BENGALURU, in the ends of justice.”

¶23

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶24

A complaint came to be lodged by Smt.Sarojamma, wife

¶25

of late Narayanappa with Dobbespet Police Station, Bengaluru District which was registered in Crime No.26/2022 for the

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 711 of 2023

¶28

offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

¶29

Gist of the complaint averments reveal that the daughter of the complainant was married to the petitioner about 13 years earlier. Deceased Rekha was working in private factory in an industrial area at Sompura and was not looking after the family affairs properly. In that regard, there was serious difference between accused No.1-Narayanappa and the deceased. Narayanappa, the father-in-law of the deceased used to pick-up quarrel on trivial issues with the deceased on the ground that she was not looking after the family affairs and used to abuse the deceased and he has also told that the family dignity has been lost due to her behaviour and therefore she should leave the matrimonial house. When the differences got widened, the deceased was made to stay in the first floor of the building. The same was intimated by the deceased to her mother, but her mother consoled her.

¶30

When the matter stood thus, on 09.02.2022 at about 8.00 p.m., when the complainant was in her house, she received a telephone call on mobile stating that with regard to

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 711 of 2023

¶33

sharing of water, a small scuffle has taken place. The deceased so intimating the complainant on the mobile telephone, raised an alarm as 'CAiÉÆåÃ' and disconnected the telephone call. Sensing some imminent danger, the complainant along with her relatives rushed to the house of the petitioner. However, by the time she reached, the deceased was found in a hung position to the window rod and her daughter had died.

¶34

After so registering the case, Police investigated the matter in detail and filed charge sheet. The role assigned to the present petitioner who is accused No.2 in the incident is that when accused No.1-Narayanappa who is the father-in-law of the deceased was assaulting the deceased mercilessly, the present petitioner held her hands tightly so as to prevent her from escaping the blows said to have been caused by the accused No.1- Narayanappa in the incident.

¶35

The attempt made by the petitioner seeking grant of bail, was rejected by the VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Criminal Misc. No.1812/2022, dated 11.10.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 711 of 2023

¶38

Sri.Hanumantharaya, C.H., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the bail grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that from the complaint averments itself

¶39

it is crystal clear that the petitioner had not harassed the deceased at any given point of time nor objected for her employment in a private factory, then there are serious differences between accused No.1 and the wife of the petitioner, an arrangement was also made, whereby the deceased with her children were made to occupy a room in the first floor. When accused No.2 had a peaceful and happy life with the deceased, why would he support accused No.1 in taking away the life of his own wife is the question that remains adjudged by the trial Court after full fledged trial.

¶40

9. Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader reiterating the grounds urged in the objection statement opposes the bail petition.

¶41

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

¶42

On such perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner, who is the husband of the deceased was

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 711 of 2023

¶45

looking after his wife in a good manner. There is no complaint against the petitioner earlier. Even on the day of incident when deceased telephoned to her mother (complainant), nothing is reported as against the petitioner. According to the charge sheet materials on the day of incident, when Father-in-law of the deceased was assaulting the deceased, the present petitioner held the hands of the deceased tightly so as to prevent her from escaping the blows said to have been given by the father-in-law of the deceased. Since the charge sheet is filed that incident has occurred at the spur of the moment, this court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the petitioner in judicial custody is no longer warranted.

¶46

Suffice to say that the material available on record at this stage would not dis-entitle the petitioner from obtaining an order for grant of bail by resorting special powers vested by this Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. More so, the father-inlaw and the mother-in-law are already enlarged on bail.

¶47

The other apprehensions expressed by the prosecution could be met with by imposing suitable and

¶48

¶49

CRL.P No. 711 of 2023

¶50

stringent conditions. Accordingly, this Court pass the

¶51

following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶54

Petitioner-accused shall be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶55

Petitioner shall not directly or indirectly hamper the investigation process and tamper the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

¶56

Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly.

¶57

Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bangalore Rural without prior permission.

¶58

Petitioner shall not indulge in similar offences.

¶59

Violation of any one of the conditions would entitle the prosecution to seek for cancellation of the bail.

¶60

Ordered accordingly.

¶61

GVP/PL*

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

Mr. Girish N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Girish N v. 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 Darshan S Vs the State of Karnataka

Rakesh C. M. @ Rakesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sheharaj @ Sheru Vs State of Karnataka

Praveena @ Kappe Vs State by Vidyaranyapuram Police

Sri Shashikumar C S @ Shashi Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Mohan Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka