Venkatesh vs State of Karnataka

Budihal R.B., J.—This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to release him on bail in Crime No. 740/2013 registered in respondent police station for offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused and also Learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner during the course of his arguments submitted that there is no eye-witness to the alleged offence and the case rests on circumstantial evidence. Counsel also made the submission that the present petitioner is having wife and children and he is residing separately and he never resided along with the deceased in her house. He also made the submission that false allegation is made against the present petitioner stating that he had illicit relationship with the deceased and he was residing with her and he committed the murder of the deceased. Counsel also made the submission that there is no prima facie material collected during the course of investigation to show the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offences. Hence, he submitted that the present petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

As against this, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that to show the present petitioner was living with the deceased, there are statement of witnesses and even statement of owner of the said house, who let out the house to the deceased. He also submitted that looking to the statement of the witness so also the statement of the daughter of the deceased, it clearly goes to show that both petitioner and deceased were living in the same house and the present petitioner used to come to the house in a drunken state and assaulting the deceased. Hence, he made the submission that prima-facie material is placed by the prosecution in support of the commission of the alleged offence by the petitioner. Hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.

I have perused the averments made in the bail petition, FIR, complaint and charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Looking to the complaint averments, the complainant is none other than the daughter of the deceased and she has clearly stated in her complaint that her mother about fifteen years back deserted her husband and started to live along with the present petitioner and she is having illicit connection with the present petitioner. The complainant has unequivocally stated in her statement before the police that the deceased was residing with the accused during the relevant time. Looking to the statement of the daughter of the deceased, it goes to show that they were living as husband and wife. Further, it reveals that on 21.10.2013, the present petitioner called to her mobile phone and asked the complainant about her where abouts, to which the complainant replied that she is at home, to which he asked the complainant what she is doing, to which the complainant replied that she is getting ready to go to the Office. By that time, he told the complainant that during night, he had a dream, in that dream, he has seen her mother committing suicide and asked the complainant to go and see what is the matter, to which the complainant asked him to go to the house and verify. The prosecution clearly made out a case that he himself called the complainant and asked her to go and see her mother which creates a doubt. Looking to the statement of owner of the house and neighbours that they had clearly stated in their statement that this petitioner coming to the house of the deceased and the petitioner used to come to the house in a drunken state and it is also stated that during the night on the day of the incident also he picked up quarrel with the deceased. Further, all these materials put together prima facie goes to show that the petitioner staying along with the deceased and the petitioner committed the murder of the deceased and looking to the material collected during the investigation, they make out a case and at this stage, looking to the material on record, there is a prima facie case made out by the prosecution about the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged offence. I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the present petitioner. Accordingly, petition is rejected.