Sri. M.T. Gajendra vs State of Karnataka

K.N. Keshavanarayana, J.—The petitioner, the sole accused in S.C.No. 1451/12 pending before 13th Fast Track Court, Bangalore City, is charged for the offences punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner is said to have committed murder of one Asha, daughter of CW1-Ramesh, Son of Angegowda. According to the case of the prosecution CW1-Ramesh lodged a report on 22.10.2010 before the respondent-police station in respect of the death of his daughter Asha in her matrimonial home where she was living with her husband. Though he did not have any clue as to the cause of her death, he stated in the complaint that he noticed reddishness on the neck of the dead body. Hence, he requested the jurisdictional police to investigate the matter. On the basis of the said report the respondent-police registered case in UDR No. 97/10 u/s 107 (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and took up investigation. The Tahsildar conducted inquest over the dead body and later sent the dead body to M.S. Ramaiah Hospital for Post Mortem examination. During P.M. Examination viscera was collected and sent for FSL examination. It appears the Post Mortem report said to have been sent by the hospital in a sealed cover addressed to the Tahsildar was misplaced. For nearly two years there was no progress in the investigation of the case. However, on 06.06.2012 the Investigating Officer said to have received a copy of the post mortem report wherein the Doctor who had conducted the Post Mortem examination had opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of combined effect of smothering and compression of neck. However, final opinion reserved pending for want of Histopathological examination and chemical analysis report. On the basis of the said opinion the Investigating Officer was of the view that it was a homicidal death. Therefore, he converted the UDR case registered earlier into a criminal case and accordingly he registered the case in Crime No. 477/12 for the offences punishable u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code against unknown persons.

During investigation the statement of Mahalingeshgowda-CW2 was recorded on 22.10.2010, wherein he indicated that on 22.10.2010 an unknown person who came to his shop after purchasing cigarette enquired about the location of the house of deceased Asha. After registration of the criminal case, the Investigating Officer apprehended this petitioner on 11.7.2012 on the basis of telephonic call details that originated from a coin booth in Dasarahalli to the mobile phone of the deceased.

During interrogation this petitioner said to have confessed to the crime and also said to have disclosed that he was loving the deceased while he and the deceased were residing in the same village. Thereafter, this petitioner said to have been identified by Mahalingegowda as the same person who had come to his shop on 22.10.10 and enquired about the house of deceased Asha. To that effect the further statement of CW2 came to be recorded. On that basis the petitioner was arraigned as accused and later subjected to judicial custody. On completion of the investigation, the I.O. filed charge sheet and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

The petition is opposed by the respondent-State.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the records made available.

As noticed supra the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The important circumstances that pitted against this petitioner is that after purchasing the cigarette from the shop of CW2 on 22.10.10 he had enquired about the house of the deceased. No doubt at this stage the contents of the copy of the Post Mortem report indicates the death of the deceased as homicidal. However, in my opinion the material available on record at this stage does not prima facie indicate the complicity of this petitioner for the homicidal death of the deceased. Even according to the telephonic call details, call to the mobile of the deceased had originated from a coin booth.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the relief of Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly the petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in S.C.No. 1451/2011, on his executing personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for the like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge and subject to further conditions that,

i) The petitioners shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner.

ii) The petitioners shall appear before the Sessions Court on all dates of hearing.

iii) The petitioner shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case.

iv) The petitioner shall not go out of the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions without express permission thereof.