Devendrappa vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

Shivashankar Amarannavar, J

This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to grant bail in Crime No.67/2025 of Malebennur Police Station, Harihara, Davanagere Pending in Special Case No.165/2025 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, at Davanagere, registered for offences punishable under Sections 85, 352, 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 103(1) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 9 and 11 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, Section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that CW13 and CW20, even though cited as eyewitness to the incident, they have not seen the incident which took place at 7.00 p.m. as alleged in the charge sheet. CW10 is the son of the petitioner and the deceased, who is stated to be eyewitness to the incident and there is a delay in recording his statement. There is a doubt regarding he being eyewitness to the incident. In the inquest, there is no mention of any eyewitness to the incident. Even though eight injuries are mentioned in P.M. Report and the death is due to strangulation, but Tracheal passage is shown to be clear. The statement of accused No.1 indicates that in a spur of moment, due to instigation by the deceased, the incident has taken place. The petitioner is having two children, one aged about 6 years and another aged about 2 years and they are dependent on him. As the charge sheet is filed, the petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. With this, he prayed for allowing the petition.

Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would contend that, CW10, who is the son of the petitioner and the deceased is eye witness to the incident and his statement is also recorded under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein he has clearly stated that the overtacts of the petitioner, assaulting and strangulating the deceased. P.M. Report indicates that the injuries over the dead body of the deceased corresponds to acts of accused stated in the statements of CW10, 13 and 20. The final opinion of the doctor who conducted P.M. Report indicates that death is due to strangulation. If the petitioner is granted bail there is a threat to prosecution witnesses. With this, she prayed to reject the petition.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that the marriage of the deceased with the petitioner has taken place when she was aged 17 years and out of marriage two children are born. Petitioner and his family members used to harass the deceased on one or the other reason. Earlier deceased was poisoned by the petitioner and others. CW10 is the son of the petitioner and the deceased and he has stated the overtacts of the petitioner, assaulting and strangulating the deceased. The P.M. Report indicates fracture of 7 and 8 ribs and also fracture of cartilage. If the petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he threatening CW.10, who is his son and other prosecution witnesses. With this, he prayed to reject the petition.

Having heard the learned counsels, perused the charge sheet and other materials placed on record.

The petitioner is husband of the deceased and their marriage had taken place on 08.05.2017, out of marriage two children are born. CW10 is one of the children, that is, the son of the petitioner and deceased. The date of incident is 17.03.2025, CW13 in his statement has stated regarding petitioner quarreling with deceased at 2.00 p.m. CW20 has stated in her statement that for having seen the petitioner assaulting the deceased at 6.00 p.m. on 17.03.2025. CW10 is the son of the deceased, whose statement is recorded by police and also under Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein he has specifically stated the acts of this petitioner, assaulting the deceased with club and strangulating her with a saree. P.M. report indicates that the cause of death is due to strangulation. Merely because in the P.M. report there is mention that tracheal passage is clear, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no strangulation as contended by petitioner. Since CW10 being close relative, being son of the petitioner, if petitioner is granted bail, there are chances of he threatening CW10 and other prosecution witnesses. The offence alleged against the petitioner is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

Considering the above aspects, the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail.

In the result, the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is dismissed.

ii) The petitioner is at liberty to move bail application before the Sessions Court after examination of CW10, 13 and 20.