Khairul Islam vs State

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under

Sections 302 and 201 of IPC registered in respondent - police station Crime No.87/2016. Earlier on the complaint of the petitioner himself, case

in UDR No.16/2016 came to be registered under Section 174(c) of Cr.P.C., but subsequently, on the complaint of the father of the deceased

case came to be registered as against the petitioner.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. The case of the

prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. Even there are no circumstances to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged

offences. Petitioner is having a small child and he has to take care of the child. From the date of arrest petitioner is in custody. Hence, by imposing

reasonable conditions, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader during the course of his arguments submitted that though there are no eyewitnesses to the

incident, but the prosecution material shows that there is a prima facie material to show the involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged

offences. He being the sole accused and the deceased being his wife, he is the proper person to explain the circumstances under which death has

occurred. Hence, submitted that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record, so also, the order of the learned

Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in rejecting the bail application of the petitioner herein.

As per the materials on record it is seen that petitioner at the first instance informed the police that deceased expired by falling into canal, but

subsequently, the complaint came to be filed by the father of the deceased and the post mortem examination also showed ligature marks on the

neck of the deceased. The statement of the first wife of the petitioner also show prima facie involvement of the petitioner in committing the alleged

offences. The strangulation marks on the neck of the deceased prima facie show that the petitioner herein at the earliest point of time gave false

information to the police that the deceased died by falling into the canal. The conduct of the petitioner in furnishing wrong information also clearly

show his intention to screen the offence. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner-

accused. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.