Devaraju vs State of Karnataka

H.S. Kempanna, J.—The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No. 1 in SC 133/2013 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge, Hassan registered for the offence u/s 302, 324 R/W Section 34 I.P.C., is before this court seeking for grant of regular bail. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner and his wife accused No. 2 have a daughter by name Sandhya. The deceased Dilipa had teased and taunted the daughter of the accused about 3 to 4 months prior to the date of occurrence which took place on 16.2.2013. Subsequently also the deceased had not given up the act of teasing and taunting the daughter of the accused. In that connection frequent quarrels were taking place between the accused on one hand and deceased and his mother on the other hand in Jumblur village of Sakaleshpur taluk. Such being the position, it is the case of the prosecution on 16.2.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. while the deceased Dilipa was sitting in front of his house along with his mother Nagamma-CW 1, the accused came to the said place armed with handle of spade and after abusing the deceased as to why he is indulging in teasing and taunting their daughter, assaulted the deceased on his head, body and hands saying that he would be killed. Seeing the said assault CWs 2, 3 and 4 came to pacify the quarrel. In the meantime the deceased escaped from the clutches of the accused and ran away. He was chased by the accused but was not able to be reached. Accused No. 2 at that juncture uttered that he has saved himself and he would be seen later. The accused thereafter went away from tire said place. CW-1 thereafter searched for her son who did not return to the house but as she could not trace him she returned to her house. Thereafter it is the case of the prosecution on 18.2.2013 at about 7 p.m., CW-13 noticed the body of the deceased lying next to a fence and on his informing the same to CW-1, CW-1 took steps to lodge the complaint with the jurisdictional police, who on receipt of the said complaint registered the case, took up investigation and after completion of the investigation submitted final report against the accused alleging that they have committed the aforementioned offences.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits accused No. 2 who is his wife has been enlarged on bail by the jurisdictional Sessions Judge. He further submits the overt act attributed to this petitioner is that he assaulted the deceased with the handle of a spade. After the assault the deceased took to his heels by escaping from the clutches of the accused. Thereafter his body is traced on the evening of 18.2.2013 nearly about two days after the assault. In the meantime though according to the prosecution the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of CW-1 on 16.2.2013 at about 7.30 p.m. and the said occurrence had been witnessed by CWs 2, 3 and 4, no steps have been taken by them to file complaint before the police in respect of the assault made by the accused on the deceased. The complaint has been filed after the body of the deceased has been seen and traced by CW-13 near his land on the evening of 18.2.2013. The complaint is filed on 19.2.2013 i.e., nearly about 2� days after the occurrence. He submits that in the light of the delay in filing the complaint and as no steps have been taken either by CW-1 or CWs 2 to 4 to set the criminal law into motion immediately after the occurrence which had taken place at about 7.30 p.m. in front of the house of CW-1 on 16.2.2013, the prosecution case that the deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained at the hands of the accused is suspicious and as Accused No. 2 has been already released on bail and having regard to the differences that were there between the accused on the one hand and the deceased and his mother on the other hand, there is no justification to decline the request of the petitioner.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader contended, the allegations in the complaint filed by CW-1 and the statements of the witnesses viz., CWs-2 to 4 and CW-13 reveal that the deceased has died on account of the injuries sustained at the hands of the accused. As the material on record reveals that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, he is not entitled to be released on bail. Insofar as Accused No. 2 is concerned, she has been granted bail by virtue of what is contemplated under the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C. being a lady and that benefit cannot be extended to the present accused. Therefore he requests the court to reject the petition. The material on record reveals the occurrence has taken place at about 7.30 p.m. on 16.2.2013 in front of the house of CW-1. The allegation is that the accused who are husband and wife have assaulted the deceased with the handles of spades on account of deceased teasing and taunting their daughter Sandhya. Though the occurrence has taken place on 16.2.2013 which has been witnessed not only by CWs 2 to 4 but also CW-13, no steps have been taken by either of the witnesses or any of the villagers of Jumblur village to set the Criminal law into motion. The complaint has been filed on 19.2.2013 by CW-1 after the body was traced on the evening of 18.2.2013 by CW-13. In the facts and circumstances of the case without going to the merits as the accused is in custody since 19.2.2013 and his wife has also been released on bail, I do not find any justification to decline the request of the petitioner. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge subject to the following conditions:-

The petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

The petitioner shall appear before the Court on all dates of hearing.