Ningappa S/o Melappa Naikar vs The State of Karnataka

This is a petition filed by petitioner/accused under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail of the

alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201

of IPC registered in respondent-police Station Crime

No.180/2016.

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on

25.09.2016 one Gangappa son of Fakkirappa Talvar has

filed complaint before the Garag police, alleging many

things. On 23.04.2016 he came to know that his

daughter by name Manjula @ Savita W/o Ningappa

Naikar, in her husband''s house, on 22.04.2016 at about

9.00 p.m. she slept after having dinner. On 23.04.2016

around 2.00 am. it is reported that there is unnatural

death of the deceased. Firstly UDR case was registered

in UDR No.14/2016 under Section 174C of Cr.P.C. But

subsequently after a lapse of nearly five months a

complaint came to be filed stating that, the petitioner

herein, the husband of the deceased, who was addicted

to drinking alcohol. Earlier to the marriage, his daughter

was suffering from T.B. and after giving treatment she

was cured. After post-natal care, Manjula @ Savita

underwent family planning operation, as an effect of that

operation, she sustained septic for which also she was

given treatment. After recovery, she was sent to the

matrimonial home. She was also physically weak. The

petitioner, who was addicted to drinking, was harassing

her for money. At that time, he was not doing any work

and was not looking after the family. Therefore, the

deceased was advising the petitioner to give up vice. But

the petitioner, without heeding to her request, was

abusing and threatening that he would teach her a

lesson. Deceased expressed the same before the

complainant, who in turn pacified her saying that her

husband would improve in future. The further allegation

is that the village people were talking about the

petitioner committing murder of his wife by throttling her

neck. Her death had occurred in a suspicious manner.

The complainant coming to know enquired with the

petitioner who gave evasive reply. On the basis of

further statement of the complainant, ultimately the case

came to be registered as per the alleged offences.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner/accused and also learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

I have perused the grounds urged in the bail

petition, FIR, complaint and other charge sheet materials

produced by the petitioner along with the petition. So

also the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge,

Dharwad rejecting the bail application.

Looking to the materials placed on record, firstly

the case was registered in UDR No.14/2016 and for a

period nearly five months there was no case as against

the present petitioner. But after recording of further

statement of the complainant the police have registered a

case against present petitioner for the alleged offences.

The complainant in the further statement stated that, in

the village people were talking that, it is the petitioner

herein who committed the murder of his wife. On the

basis of the same further statement was given by the

complainant before the police. Therefore, there is delay

of more than five months in giving said statement before

the police.

I have also perused the statements of all the

witnesses made before investigating officer during the

investigation. It is no doubt true the statement of one

Jyoti Naikar @ Talvar, the daughter of the deceased,

which statement was recorded by the police, it is stated

that, her father throttled her mother and caused the

death of her mother between the night at 9.00 p.m of

22.04.2016 and 2.00 p.m. of 23.04.2016. Her statement

recorded by the Investigating Officer on 26.09.2016. If

really she was an eye witness to the incident,

immediately she would have stated the same thing

before the police. Registration of the case as an

unnatural death in UDR No.14/2016 is material in

appreciating case of the prosecution at this stage.

I have perused the postmortem report. It is no

doubt true the doctor who conducted the autopsy gave

his opinion that on perusal of chemical analysis and

Histopathological report he is of the opinion that the

death is due to compression of neck. If this is opinion of

the doctor in the postmortem report. But in view of the

such long delay in giving further statement by the mother

and the statement of daughter showing the involvement

of present petitioner in the case, is a matter to be

considered by the trial Court after recording of the

evidence. Now the investigation is completed and charge

sheet has been filed. It is contention of the petitioner

that he is innocent and has not committed alleged

offence. The petitioner has undertaken that he is ready

abide by condition that may be imposed by this Court.

Hence I am of the opinion that, by imposing reasonable

conditions, the petitioner can be enlarged on bail.

Hence petition is allowed. Petitioner/ accused is

ordered to be released on bail of the alleged offences

punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC, subject to the

following conditions:

[a] Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety to the like-sum with the satisfaction of concerned Court.

[b] Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly or indirectly.

[c] Petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court regularly.