Anand vs State of Karnataka

V. Jagannathan, J.—Heard both sides in respect of the bail petition filed u/s 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure following the case registered against the Petitioner in respect of the offence punishable u/s 302 of IPC.

The case of the prosecution in short is that, the Petitioner herein married deceased Neelamma. As she was his second wife and due to quarrel between the couple and the deceased having refused to get the pregnancy aborted, and following the birth of a girl child to the deceased, the Petitioner was bent upon taking revenge against the deceased and he even threatened her by saying, to give away the child to somebody or else he would kill her and the Petitioner also tried to kill the child. With this background, on 6.4.10 when the brother of the deceased viz., Vishnu was passing through the house of the deceased, he heard some galata going on between deceased and the Petitioner at around 11.30 p.m. and the said brother went away. But, however, as the window of the house was found open, the brother peeped inside the window and saw the deceased being assaulted and pushed to the sofa by the Petitioner and thereafter the Petitioner smothered her by closing her mouth and nose and pressed her against the sofa.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner referring to the statement of the above said witness Vishwa, submitted that, it is a false statement and moreover, no one was in the house except the deceased and the Petitioner used to reside with his first wife also. Statement of Vishwa came to be recorded only on 10.4.2010, though the witness was present during the inquest and incident is said to have taken place on 7th April morning. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner be released on bail. Moreover, the Petitioner is suffering from illness which requires homely treatment.

Submission of the learned Addl. S.P.P for the State is that, the statement of Vishwa clearly shows that on the night prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased was seen with the accused Petitioner and the accused had assaulted her and early morning on the following day i.e. on 7.4.2010 she was found dead having been smothered and the post mortem report confirms the possibility of death having taken place in the manner staled by Vishwa. Under these circumstances, bail petition be rejected.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the statement of Vishwa, brother of the deceased and there being a quarrel between the deceased and the Petitioner on the night of 6.4.10 at 11.30 p.m. and on the very next day, in the early morning deceased being found dead at 2.30 a.m. and there being no material to show that except the Petitioner, no other person could have entered the house of the deceased and also taking note of the previous enmity that the Petitioner had with the deceased as stated by Vishwa in his statement before the police on 10.4.10, the Petitioner is not entitled for bail. Moreover, the offence attracts life imprisonment or death penalty as punishment. Therefore, granting bail is not warranted in such circumstances.

Petition is rejected. However, the trial court shall endeavour to dispose of the case at the earliest.