Sri C. Narayanaswamy and Smt. Lakshmi vs State of Karnataka

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

The first petitioner is married to the second petitioner. The second petitioner is said to be his third wife. It transpires that his first wife had died and the second wife had deserted him. The petitioner No. 1 is said to have had two children by the first wife, namely the complainant, who is aged about 20 and a daughter who was aged about 17. It transpires that the daughter had consumed poison and after receiving information about her having consumed poison, the petitioners had rushed her to Sushrusha Nursing Home at Yelahanka and thereafter she was shifted for further treatment to Mahaveer Jain Hospital at Bangalore, she was conscious at that point of time and is said to have revealed that she had consumed poison. She had died later. Two days after her death, the complainant had lodged the complaint alleging that his father had instructed his step mother to fetch poison that was in the farm house and his father had forcibly held his sister while the poison was administered by step mother and it is in this background that the girl had died. It is on these allegations that the police had registered a case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The learned counsel for the petitioners having approached the Court below seeking bail, the same has been rejected on the footing that there is no material produced to show that the petitioners had indeed rushed the deceased to hospital on learning that she had consumed poison and it is in this background that the application has been rejected.

It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the mere absence of a recording by the police as to the conduct of the petitioners, of them having taken the deceased to hospital in the first instance, when she had consumed poison and the fact that she had revealed that she had consumed poison to the doctor has not been taken note of by the Trial Court. In the absence of such recording, the Court below had proceeded to reject the bail application. The counsel would submit that in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the delay in lodging the complaint and the fact that, if the complainant was indeed a eyewitness to the alleged incident, his conduct would dilute the allegations and cannot be readily accepted.

Though the learned Government Pleader would seek to vehemently oppose the petition, the circumstance that the complainant was said to be an eyewitness had taken over 48 hours to lodge a complaint is itself a circumstance which requires to be explained by the prosecution in bringing home the allegations against the petitioners. Therefore, it is a matter which can only be established at the trial. The petitioners are certainly entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The petitioners shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) each with one surety for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly seek to influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iv) They shall appear before the Investigation officer as and when required and shall cooperate with the Investigating Officer.

(v) The petitioners shall attend the Court regularly.

(vi) In case of violation of any of these conditions, the Court is at liberty to pass suitable orders.