Balakrishna Pai vs The State of Karnataka

L. Narayana Swamy, J—Petitioner is accused in a criminal case bearing Crime No. 22/2013 of Chikkajala police station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Now he is in judicial custody since 29.07.2015. Hence, he has filed this petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking for release.

It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Smt. Vijaya B. Pai was the wife of the complainant/accused. She was working in I.M.H.R. company situated at Electronic City as Secretary. As usual, on 12.12.2013, deceased left home to go to her office, but she did not return in the evening. She did not contact petitioner and daughter over telephone also. When they tried to contact, petitioner and his daughter were getting reply stating that, ''mobile phone was not reachable''. Petitioner and his daughter searched Vijapai, but they could not get any clue about her. Hence, at about 7.30 p.m., petitioner lodged complaint in Sanyanagar Police Station.

On 15.02.2013, petitioner got information from Sanjayanagar Police Station that unknown dead body was found in decomposed position, within the limit of Chikkajala Police Station. Concerned SHO informed to the petitioner to see the dead body and verify the same. Petitioner saw the dead body, which was in highly decomposed status and also part of the dead body were eaten by animals. He identified that, it was the dead body of his wife. Hence, a compliant has been registered against the unknown persons. Police have investigated the matter, when they could not get any information about the culprit, they filed final report before the Court of JMFC, Devanahalli stating that culprits were not traceable and closed the case.

Thereafter, an application requesting to reopen the case was filed by the police to the jurisdictional Magistrate on 22.07.2015. Same was permitted by the said Court. It appears respondent police found some blood stains near the house of petitioner. They took scrap of blood stains for DNA test. They also enquired colleagues of the deceased and found that petitioner was harassing deceased and torturing her. Hence, the I.O. believed that petitioner murdered her and thrown the dead body in the said place. Thereafter, on 29.07.2015, respondent police arrested the petitioner and enquired him. Petitioner refused to answer questions of the police and not cooperated for interrogation. Hence, he was produced before the Court of JMFC, Devanahalli and he was remanded to juridical custody. From 29.07.2015, petitioner is in judicial custody.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged against him. The incident occurred on 12.12.2013, but after two years of the incident, the police have arrested the petitioner-accused and it may not be possible and it shows that petitioner is falsely implicated only to harass him. On the other hand, the petitioner himself made a complaint to the police about missing of his wife. Hence, he prays to allow the petition by granting bail to the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that petitioner is involved in commission of the alleged offence which is serious in nature and heinous offence. Hence, he requests this Court to dismiss this petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

On perusal of the records, it discloses that the police have arrested the petitioner after the two years of incident. This itself goes to show that police have only doubted the petitioner. Even accepting the case of the prosecution for a moment that on 12.04.2013, the police found the blood stains near the steps of the house of the deceased certainly the police could have tracked the case based on the said evidence and moreover they found the bloodstained vale of the deceased on 15.02.2013, if that is the case, what prevented them to send the blood stains to the FSL at the earliest point of time. As per the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, whole story is cooked up against the petitioner.

Taking note of all these facts and circumstances and also by considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to grant bail to this petitioner by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly the following:

ORDER

i. Petition is allowed.

ii. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court.

iii. Petitioner shall attend the court on all dates of hearing, except under unavoidable circumstances.

iv. Petitioner shall not hold any threats to the prosecution witnesses or lure them in any manner.

If the petitioner violates any of the above conditions, prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.