1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.375 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
DEVARAJU
S/O LAKSHMANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
R/O BHADRAPURA VILLAGE
SHIKARIPURA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 427
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.R.B.DESHPANDE, ADV.,)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SHIKARIPURA RURAL POLICE STATION-577 427
SHIMOGA (D)
RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

439 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN CRIME NO.160/2013 OF SHIKARIPURA RURAL
P.S., SHIMOGA FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 302 OF IPC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS

THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER
This

is

the

petition

filed

by

the

petitioner accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

seeking his release on bail of the offences punishable
under Section 302 of IPC registered in the respondent
police station Crime No.160/2013.

2.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are;

that the complainant is residing at Kappanahalli village

along with his mother. Prior to 20 years his mother was
married with one Basavarajappa and they had a male
and female children. Complainants sister was given in
marriage with one Raju.

Complainants father died

prior to his daughters marriage. Prior to complainants

fathers death one Devaraj of Bhadrapura village used
to visit his house and thereby there was an illicit
relationship between his mother and Devaraj. Devaraj
used to stay in the house and he has not married.

Whenever, he used to come to their house, he was

consuming alcohol and use to abuse his mother.

On

15.06.2013, at about 6.00 p.m., complainant had been

to collect coolie amount near circle at the village. While
he was returning he has seen Devaraj, Nataraj and Raju
were going. When he came to house, he saw the clothes
were scattered here and there and not found his
mother. When he went to adjacent house, he saw his
mother lying dead with ligature marks on her neck.
When he asked his aunt, she informed that Devaraj had
come to house and made galata with his mother. Hence,
he filed the complaint before the police for taking action
against the petitioner and others.

3.

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner-Accused No.1 also learned

High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
State.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the

course of his argument submitted that there are no

direct witnesses to the alleged incident.

Case of the

prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence.

He also made submission that prosecution relies upon
the statement of CW3 stating that accused made the
extra judicial confession before CW3. Counsel made the
submission that the statement of CW3 was recorded
after arrest of the accused person by the police. He also
submitted that now, the investigation of the case is
completed and charge sheet has been filed and hence,
by imposing any reasonable conditions petitioner may
be admitted to bail.

5.

As against this, the learned High Court

Government Pleader during the course of his arguments

submitted that the present petitioner was having illicit
connection

with

the

deceased

and

about

illicit

relationship the complainant as well as CWs.6 and 7

have already stated in their statement. He further made

submission that even immediately prior to the alleged

incident, the accused No.1 was seen going from the
house of the deceased. Hence, he submitted that there
is a prima facie material placed by the prosecution to
show the involvement of the present petitioner in the
commission of the alleged offence. Hence, he submitted
that petitioner is not entitled to be granted with bail.

6.

I have perused the averments made in the

bail petition, FIR., complaint, order passed by the lower

Court and also other materials placed on record. The
son of the deceased himself is the complainant who
lodged the complaint, wherein it is alleged that the
petitioner was having illicit connection with his mother
and his father expired long back and the present
petitioner used to come to the house of the complainant
in a drunken state and often he used to quarrel with his
mother and he was assaulting her. Prosecution relied
upon the statement of CW3 whose statement has been
recorded

by

the

Investigating

Officer

during

investigation and it is to the effect that on the

information received that the mother of the complainant
is dead on the next date of the incident ie., on
16.06.2013, when he contacted the petitioner over
phone and enquired and at that time the accused made
the extra judicial confession before him that he himself
committed the murder of the deceased. Though as per
the case of the prosecution the said extra judicial
confession has been made before CW3 on the next day
of the incident ie., on 16.06.2013 but till 23.06.2013 his
statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer
during investigation and it is only on 23.06.2013 the
statement of said CW3 was recorded by Investigating
Officer. Therefore, there is a delay of about 8 days in
recording the said statement of CW3 about extra
judicial confession said to have been made by the
present petitioner.

Only on the basis of that now, it

cannot be inferred that there is a prima facie material

placed by the prosecution. The investigation of the case
is already completed and charge sheet has been already

filed, the accused has undertaken in the bail petition

that he is ready to abide by any conditions of this Court.
As there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident and
the

case

of

circumstantial

the

prosecution

evidence,

by

is

rests

imposing

on

the

reasonable

conditions, petitioner can be admitted to bail.

7.

Accordingly,

the

petition

is

allowed.

Petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail

of the offences punishable under section 302 of IPC
registered

in

the

respondent-police

station

No.160/2013 subject to the following conditions:

(i)

The petitioner-Accused No.1 has to

execute a personal bond for a sum
of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) and to furnish one solvent
surety

for

the

likesum

to

the

satisfaction of the concerned Court.

(ii)

The petitioner shall not tamper with

the prosecution witnesses directly or
indirectly.

Crime

(iii)

He

has

to

appear

before

concerned Court regularly.

Sd/-

JUDGE
GH

the